On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:31 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
>
>> I think this reasoning is flawed.  If we believe the names
>> [exact->inexact and inexact->exact] are bad, and that R6RS fixed the
>> names, we should go with R6RS, not write an apology.
>
> That would break backward compatibility with IEEE Scheme, a constraint
> which did not apply to the R6RS work but is effectively imposed on WG1
> by its charter.  I would be extremely reluctant to go there.

It's a trivial change compared to switching to case-sensitivity,
and as Alaric pointed out only results in a slightly different
import incantation to get the R5RS names.  This is definitely
a change we can consider.

Also, double checking, the names are not historical, since
in every draft at least as far back as R3RS they both take
either exact or inexact arguments.  They are simply misleading.

I've added ticket #328 for this.

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports