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.

In any case, I don't think that consistency ought to be demanded in the
notes.  Consider the notes in 4.1.3: they have no equivalents elsewhere,
but we keep them because they are helpful.

--
By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall     cowan@ccil.org
have neither the Ring nor me!  --Frodo          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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