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.
>>>>> "Shriram" == Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Shriram> Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] wrote: >> I'm Mr. Sperber, actually. (Even though some people might find >> "Mr. Egner" more intuitive :-) ) Shriram> It's Dr. Sperber, actually, if we want to give this little devil his Shriram> due. (Or, this being Germany, it's probably Herr Prof. Dr. Sperber Shriram> Dipl.-Ing. or something along those lines.) I'll point out that it's "Dr. Egner" as well ;-) Shriram> That said, Mike: >> They actually do. I don't see why a term coined somewhere else needs >> to be used *here*. Shriram> Why not standardize the term across related languages? The specific Shriram> argument you're advancing above is pretty weak -- you can do better. I'm all for that if the term is well-chosen and the analogy is plainly visible. Unfortunately, I don't think either of these holds. I think I've argued why I think the name is poorly chosen. Moreover, it isn't clear that the connection between a syntactic construct in ML/Haskell specific to binary operators which looks basically entirely unlike SRFI 26 is all that obvious. (Of course we all know the *formal* connection. I don't think it matters as SRFI 26 is really about a primarily *practical* construct.) As for CURRY, I think Sebastian has argued much better than I could why he picked the name and why he's sticking to it. He's also argued why the arguments he's heard so far haven't convinced him. I haven't seen any substantially new arguments (or better names) advanced here, and simply repeating the old ones won't help matters. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla