On 8/9/05, Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To avoid confusion, and make it easier to write portable > programs, it would be better to have distinct names for > these two distinct pairs of procedures. Then maybe one > could be defined in terms of the other. I don't know > if this would be possible, it would probably be slow, > but it is certainly more difficult if the two pairs of > procedures have the same names! > > Since the defining characteristic of the SRFI system is that > there are no special syntax objects, just lists of > identifiers, they might be called |datum->syntax-list| and > |syntax-list->datum|, or just go back to the original > shorter names. >
I strongly agree. Besides "datum->syntax"/"syntax->datum" is shorter and doesn't look less intuitive to me than the "-syntax-object" names (because, as Keith already pointed out, they don't really deal with distinct syntax objects, but with s-expressions - albeit in a syntactic context). cheers, felix
