Scott Sauyet

@anomaaly: I'd be interested in a PR for that. It would be great if it simply updated `uncurryN`; but that might not be possible. A separate function would make sense...

@anomaaly: As we're trying to handle long-standing discussions, are you interested in creating a PR for this?

> I do like the fact that `R.reduce(R.concat, '', ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'])` evaluates to `'foobarbaz'`. That's my take on the whole concept. Although I'm very frustrated by `gt(5)` not feeling...

> How about providing flipped versions, either suffixed (gt_, lte_, etc), or as a properties (gt._, ...)? People have really not liked the properties version in the past, but I...

@scott-christopher: We could, but I think that would become more _ad hoc_. The advantage of the suffix is that the same solution that works for `gt` also works for `subtract`....

> Are we really interested in having flipped `gt`? `gt_` would be equal to `lt` and `lt_` would be equal to `gt`. I.e. they would just be aliases. In the...

I don't have a serious objection to `isGt`, `isLt`, etc. My preference is for the underscore suffix as we could then be entirely consistent, and use it for all non-commutative...

@scott-christopher: This list feels reasonably correct. (I might throw in `difference` as well.) But `subtractBy` doesn't feel particularly appropriate. There's another issue with `*By`, going back to [Issue #65](https://github.com/ramda/ramda/issues/65#issuecomment-46786430), where...

@paldepind: That sounds quite reasonable. I think it captures almost everything. We still need to address the `modulo`. `modulo(5)` _sounds_ the same way `subtract(5)` or `gt(5)` does. If we can...

Since Ramda focuses on value equality, we don't make the call. I'm not sure if we still do, but at one point, at least one of our Set-like array operations...