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 [email protected] have neither the Ring nor me! --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
