Daniel Villeneuve scripsit:

> I vote "yes" because I think it's useful to standardize on the interface
> for boxes.

Thank you for voting.

> However, I'd favor box-ref/box-set! for the names of the getter/setter,
> for similarity with vectors and strings.

Since SRFI 111 has been in draft for two months and discussed (not much,
I admit) on the SRFI 111 mailing list, I rule this comment to be untimely.

> Even though it's possible for individual programmers to rename library
> identifiers, I think that reading others' code is likely to be improved
> if standard names are chosen so that they would be used in their
> original form as much as possible.

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.

--
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                cowan@ccil.org
And is made up of                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
   Contradiction.  --William Blake

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scheme-reports-wg2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.