Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.

[Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 | Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:30:02 -0500
 | From: Alan Watson <a.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 | 
 | >Also, is the prefixed `x' for exact; wouldn't `e' be more
 | >Schemely?
 | 
 | Wouldn't exact-foo and inexact-foo be more in keeping with other
 | R5RS procedure names?  After all, we swallowed
 | call-with-current-continuation.

Yes.

Looking for simple "convenience function" precedents in R5RS, the only
ones which come to mind are NEWLINE and REMAINDER.  NEWLINE was a poor
idea, as it removed motivation for specifying a method to code
newlines in literal string constants.  REMAINDER needs only -, *, and
QUOTIENT.

(inexact->exact (truncate x)) is shorter than
call-with-current-continuation, so I will pass on adding them to
SRFI-70.