take, drop, take-while and drop-while, exactly mirror the definitions in the Haskell Prelude, FWIW (except for the non-camel-case names)
This order makes sense if you're into currying: user=> (let [f (partial take 3)] (f (range 200000000))) (0 1 2) Tom On May 6, 7:09 pm, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > (take) makes perfect sense the way it is, but it doesn't seem > consistent with other similar things in that many things take the > collection, first. > > consider (get), (nth), and how java interop looks. The pattern seems > to be: "(function thing argument)" ... except for (take) -- and maybe > other cases? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
