[R6RS] inconsistent naming of arithmetic predicates

William D Clinger will at ccs.neu.edu
Thu Jun 29 15:19:38 EDT 2006

Mike wrote:
> In order of preference 2, 1, 0.

My order of preference is 1, 2, 0.

The status quo is 0, so there seems to be some dissatisfaction
with the status quo.

For Mike, mostly:  I have completed phase 2 of the reference
implementation for arithmetic, which brings it up to date
with the second draft of SRFI 77, as corrected.  (While
programming, I noticed and fixed quite a few errors in the
SRFI, so you'll want to run a diff between the current
version and the one that's up at schemers.org.  I have also
fixed the typos that have been reported in the discussion
of that SRFI.)  When you approve, I'll pass the implementation
along to the SRFI editor, or you can do that yourself.


More information about the R6RS mailing list