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.
One thing I've wanted that the proposal doesn't cover is the ability to reorder the arguments. Something like: (curry - <2> <1>) == (lambda (x1 x2) (- x2 x1)) (curry list 1 <2> 3 <1> 5) == (lambda (x1 x2) (list 1 x2 3 x1 5)) Now I agree that down this path lies madness -- at some point, just writing the lambda-expression becomes the most perspicuous way to say what you mean -- but to me this still seems within bounds. Note that I'm not proposing to replace `<>' with `<1>', `<2>', etc. I'm suggesting that the user gets the choice: If she uses `<>', then the order is implicit as it is now. If she uses `<1>', `<2>', ..., then the numbers give the order of arguments. Let it be an error if she mixes the two.