On 2020-08-18 07:59 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Am Di., 18. Aug. 2020 um 06:28 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <
> xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:
>
> > On 2020-08-17 10:48 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 2:00 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
> > > xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > - For clarity, bitvector= should mention equality of lengths.
> > > >
> > > - R7RS has boolean=?, char=?, string=?, etc. Thus, bitvector= should be
> > > > named bitvector=?
> >
> > I don't think this naming change is worth it.  Many SRFIs drop the ?
> > on equivalence procedures.  In particular, SRFI 133 has vector= and
> > 160 has @vector=.  Both of these SRFIs are closely related to 178, so
> > I think it would actually be clearer to follow their naming here.
> >
>
> That's unfortunate. I just saw that "vector=" already appeared in SRFI 43.
> For homogeneous vectors, this really clashes with "string=?" when we view a
> string as a homogeneous vector of characters.
>
> Could we extract some systematics here? Equality predicates end in "=" when
> we deal with numerics and in "=?" otherwise?

Alas, it's extremely muddled.  A few examples:

SRFI 1      list=
SRFI 13     string=
SRFI 14     char-set=
SRFI 113    set=?
SRFI 116    ilist=
SRFI 122    interval=
SRFI 125    hash-table=?
SRFI 127    lseq=?
SRFI 133    vector=
SRFI 134    ideque=
SRFI 135    textual=?
SRFI 160    @vector=
SRFI 189    maybe=, either=

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"If work is to become play, then tools must become toys."
--Lee Felsenstein