This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Just a few small comments regarding the naming convention, and a small erratum: - Non-uniformity: div, div+mod, etc. are abbreviated while e.g. quotient+remainder is not. - For clarity and disambiguation, I think it would be nicer if the various type prefixes were written out, or at least followed by a hyphen. It would also be more consistent with widespread Scheme practice and R5RS (for example vector-ref, list-ref). E.g., fixnum-integer? (or at least fx-integer?) Especially, I think that, e.g., flownum-atan (or at least fl-atan) exact-expt (or at least ex-expt) read much better than flatan and exexpt, since the latter seem like misspelled English words. Similar in this respect are indiv (common abbreviation for individual) fllog (whips and chains, anyone?) inlog (sounds like what you do after switching on the computer) flexp (the flex parses more strongly than the exp) - Also, for common editing operations: it is more error prone to search and replace, e.g., "fx" with "fl" than it is to replace "fixnum-" with "flownum-". - fx, fl, in, ex, all require the novice to refer to the spec before they can read code even approximately, whereas the approximate meaning of fixnum-, inexact-, are immediately apparent. - Furthermore, the in* procedures, such as incomplex?, infloor, etc., to me parse like set membership predicates - which some of them are - but in the wrong way. They would be easier to parse as inexact-complex?, etc. - Erratum: "(flatan1 fl1 fl2) computes the arc tangent of fl1/fl2." Should be flatan2 Cheers Andre