A bit of a silly question, but why do people prefer an interface of (fn proc data) and not (fn data proc)

@slack1 we’ve moved toward the latter, but the former is the historical tradition (ie map)

I’m not sure if this influences Racket’s choice, but (map proc data) is nicer with partial application, since you can do (define increment-all (map add1))

ah I see

I also didn’t know that things were auto-curried like that

I thought you had to curry map

They aren’t afaik. I was just saying that if things are autocurried, e.g. In haskell or hackett, then the order of map/filter/fold’s arguments seems more natural

the current rule in racket “functions that operate on some abstract type foo? use the prefix foo- in their names and take the foo? input as the first argument”

also it’s easier to extend to multiple arguments if the function comes first (as in map)

but in general the rule is as @notjack says