John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> I agree with this in principle.  In this particular case, I thought
> (and nobody objected) that "the unanimous voice of Racket, Gambit,
> SISC, and Chez" to quote the SRFI) trumps systematic names.  Chicken
> supports both, which leaves only MIT and Scheme48, neither of which
> uses the names you suggest either.

Just for the record, Guile calls boxes "variables", and has variable-ref
and variable-set!.

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