On 2022-03-29 17:39 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> (1) The title of the SRFI is not really a faithful description of the
> contents because there is not really a "currying" operator. I wonder
> whether it makes sense to rename it to "Curried Procedures"?

I'm not sure.  "Curried Procedures" is more accurate, but it might
suggest something like SRFI 219.  One of the intriguing things about
SRFI 232 is that the procedures created by 'curried' can be applied
to arguments partially or all at once--thus they aren't strictly
curried procedures.  Perhaps "flexible curried procedures" is a
more descriptive title?  I don't want to change the title at the
last minute unless the new title is significantly clearer.

> (2) In the specification, you can cut away one more case, namely the
> third one by explicitly allowing n = 0 in the second case. I would
> leave the third case as a comment but not as part of the actual
> specification because that way the uniformity is even clearer.

In other words, treat

    (curried xs ...)

as a special case of

    (curried (v1 ... vn . xs) ...),

which it sort of is.

While this would be elegant, I don't think it would be very clear.
Both R6RS and R7RS deal with these cases of lambda separately, and
I'm inclined to do the same.  (Further, do many Scheme implementations
still follow the convention that "every atom is an improper list",
and allow (. x) to be equivalent to x?)

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