On 2022-10-28 11:58, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:

> IMO, it is actually a good thing for the name to be quite different
> from Scheme's dynamic-wind.  Dynamic-wind is built so that control can
> leave and enter the THUNK several times and has the notion of a
> BEFORE-THUNK.  The first is forbidden and the latter is not the case
> for unwind-protect.  Moreover, unwind-protect is syntax, while
> dynamic-wind-once would probably be expected to be a procedure as
> well.
>
> What do you think?

Well, we have a procedure and a special form that do essentially similar
things, namely ensuring that some cleanup code is executed when the
protected form is exited, and yet one's name includes “wind” and the
other's includes “unwind”. At the risk of saying something
flammable/inflammable, this seems needlessly confusing. Perhaps
`dynamic-wind' should have been called something else (though there were
good reasons for choosing that name), but that ship has sailed.

Could this new form be called `wind-protect'?

I also think it's necessary to have an explanation about the differences
between dynamic-wind and this new form. It's not obvious to me that a
(human) reader would grasp the need for both without a few sentences
explaining the intended uses.

-- vincent