Hi all,

Since SRFI 232 is nearing the 60-day mark, I'd like to start wrapping
it up.  There are a few outstanding issues under discussion, most
prominent being a better name for lambda*.  So far, I have the
following suggestions:

* hl-lambda (Daphne)
* schönfinkel (Marc, semi-serious)
* lambda/curried (Wezl via IRC)
* kappa (me)

If there are any others, please let me know.  I'd be happy to do a
quick naming poll, similar to what Adam did with SRFI 214, if there is
enough interest.  I tend to think that 'define-curried' is a pretty
good name for the define wrapper, but this is not set in stone; were
hl-lambda selected, e.g., I'd probably opt for hl-define.

On another topic, John Cowan has suggested that support for "polyadic"
(the dotted-tail case of the lambda* semantics, called "polyvariadic"
in Hemann & Friedman's paper) procedures be removed.  He believes this
would simplify lambda* and remove a source of potential confusion.  At
the moment, I'm not in agreement.  Three reasons: I haven't seen any
polyvariadic examples that I find especially confusing, it's not easy
to simulate this behavior otherwise, and providing it makes lambda*
syntactically more similar to lambda.

As for providing the lambda** or lambda*** forms discussed in earlier
messages, I'm inclined to say that they're too far afield from lambda*
to be packaged in the same specification.  As alternatives, I'd be
happy to see them presented in a related SRFI.

Best regards,

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