Am Fr., 22. Jan. 2021 um 02:40 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

The trouble with "xcompose" is that it means "opposite of compose", but what is "compose"? I think we should go with compose<< and compose>> in both SRFI 210 and SRFI 189. These names are visually right-to-left or left-to-right. That way, there is no ambiguity and no problem with backward compat to non-SRFIs.

You are, of course, right, when it comes to the meaning of "xcompose", which can only be guessed. Indeed, "compose<<" and "compose>>" look much clearer.

Yet, they don't look very Scheme-like to me.

I would then rather use

compose-left

and

compose-right

which are mathematical well-defined (and follow the fold-xxx naming scheme).

Right composition means that the argument to the function is on the right, left composition that the argument to the function is on the left. In mathematical notation, the former is given by $\circ$, the latter given by $;$ (borrowing from Z notation).

Can we agree on these names?

Marc