This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 26 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 26 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "felix" == felixundduni <felix> writes: >> >> > It doesn't look as though the poster knows what "curry" means >> > outside the context of this SRFI. >> >> That is quite true -- as I say, he's trying to _find out_ what >> currying does. So why is he looking at SRFI-26? Because it deals with a >> macro named CURRY -- if the macro were called SECTION instead, he probably >> would never have seen SRFI-26. >> felix> I agree. felix> (After all, what's so "unintuive" about `section'? After all felix> this is *exactly* what SRFI-26 does. Using terminology that is felix> already in common use (Haskell) is the obvious solution, IMHO) I think, when you're arguing about intuition, you need to show why something is intuitive, not why something is not unintuitive. Many Scheme programmers aren't Haskell programmers or ML programmers first. When I tell students I'm teaching ML or Haskell "this is called operator section," there's always row after row of blank faces. They don't find this intuitive at all. I completely fail to see why it should be "obvious." -- Cheers =8-} M. Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla