Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 21:00 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
John Cowan
(12 Sep 2015 22:08 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 23:32 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc. John Cowan (13 Sep 2015 01:06 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(13 Sep 2015 11:46 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
Per Bothner
(13 Sep 2015 14:31 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(13 Sep 2015 14:40 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc.
John Cowan
(13 Sep 2015 17:39 UTC)
|
Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc. John Cowan 13 Sep 2015 01:06 UTC
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > That being said, CL, Elisp, Guile, and probably most others which define > some -for-each, -map, and -fold operations on hash tables oblige with > the typical ordering as well. CL and Elisp aren't exactly to be admired > in design decisions though. Guile's might have been a historic accident > too, simply imitating others. If you want Ruby (which likes lambda arguments to be last for syntactic reasons) you know where to find it. > I'll note that Racket has 'proc' appear last in 'hash-for-each'. And > Racket is a Scheme that cares a lot about clean design as far as I know. Racket is an implementation that cares a lot about Racket, as I've said before. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. --Julius Caesar