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> IMHO it would be better do dump this SRFI than to use an inappropriate >felix> and confusing name. > >Oh, please, come on! We're having a discussion here, and this kind of >sulking ("if I can't have my way then you shouldn't have yours") is >what's really inappropriate. Why don't you provide some fresh and and >more convincing arguments instead that actually address Sebastian's >motivation? Oh, I'm not sulking, really. I couldn't care less. But this is a discussion, right? So let my share my opinions. I'm serious, I think one shouldn't go for the "least common denominator" here. This SRFI isn't really going to make writing Scheme code much easier, or even clearer (even with an intuitive name). So I don't understand why we should stick to the suboptimal name CURRY. In that case I would propose to save the trouble and spend the time doing something more useful. Actually I *do* have a better name for CURRY (and you know which one). It could also be something like PARTIAL-whatever, but it should be short. Would you have a better name? Grand! Tell us. Not? No problem. But *please* let's not take the easy, lazy way out (just taking whatever is at hand). That is definitely not The Right Thing. > >felix> And that it is confusing has been proved. > >Where? comp.lang.scheme, for example. And just Imagine the blank faces of your students when you tell them about this curious CURRY SRFI that doesn't do currying. felix