23 Aug
2008
23 Aug
'08
9:29 a.m.
Hi
I had always just assumed that take and genericTake did the same thing, so had never even realised this problem existed. I'd call this a bug, that needs fixing.
Maybe the bug is in 'drop', 'take' and 'splitAt' and it was intended to fix it in 'generic' variants. Is there a good reason why to ignore negative number arguments? It may hide bugs.
Too late. There is code depending on this behaviour in the wild, and we can't break it without a really really really good reason. Changing undefined to a value is not too bad (some optimisations in ByteString do it automatically even!), but changing a value to undefined is bad. Thanks Neil