John Cowan <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
