On 2021-06-09 11:20 -0700, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>
> wrote:
>
> > None of the options seem particularly beautiful, but I'm leaning
> > toward "int-mapping".  We do have "bytevectors" and "bitvectors",
> > though, so I wonder if "intmapping" is more consistent with that
> > naming pattern.
>
> Speaking without my editor's hat on, please use the hyphenated version.
> The unhyphenated examples you cite were deliberately chosen, but they were
> mistakes.  Scheme isn't shy with parentheses or hyphens.  Let's not start a
> trend away from using them.

OK, let's go with "int-mapping".

I appreciate Marc's points in favor of "fxmapping", but I think this
would lead to confusion if an implementation did choose to support
bignums.  (I've never liked the "fx" prefix, either.)

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

"For good or ill, when I went off to grad school, I studied
linguistics, so the only computer language I used there was LISP.
It was my own personal McCarthy era." --Larry Wall