On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
>
>> > The Notes states `The R5RS names inexact->exact for exact and
>> > exact->inexact for inexact were retained, with a note indicating
>> > that their names are historical.' I can find no reference to the
>> > name etymology in the entry for these two procedures on p. 36.
>>
>> I removed this because we don't, in general, discuss the historical
>> reasons for names so it seemed out of place.  The notes were not
>> updated, but will be before the final draft (unless someone proposes
>> we uniformly explain all non-obvious names).
>
> These names aren't historical in the sense of "car" or "cdr"; they're
> actively misleading, and they were changed in R6RS.  We chose not to
> follow R6RS, which I think was the Right Thing -- but a motherhood note
> explaining the names seems harmless.

I think this reasoning is flawed.  If we believe the
names are bad, and that R6RS fixed the names,
we should go with R6RS, not write an apology.

R5RS compatibility can be broken in cases, especially
where R6RS has already paved the way, and names
are trivial to provide compatibility for since the module
system allows for renaming.

--
Alex

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