Destruction is the opposite of construction; cons and nil are the two
list constructors,  and list-case does the opposite, thereby the
name.'t

What I don't understand is why you make a difference between something
like destructuring-bind and matcher with just one clause.  They just
differ by a transposition in syntax.  See the definition of
with-syntax in terms of syntax-case, for example (in the standard
libraries document of R6RS in chapter 12).

In any case, it is just the SRFI's name, so the word destructuring
does not appear in the library's name nor in one of the exported
identifiers.

Marc

Am Sa., 5. Nov. 2022 um 22:09 Uhr schrieb Jakub T. Jankiewicz <xxxxxx@onet.pl>:
>
> I'm worried about the name. The concerns are that name destructuring in
> programming mean getting data about of structure. This is how
> destructure-bind work in common lisp[1] or JavaScript[2]. I would not call
> pattern matching on list destructuring. Those two full name have additional
> word like bind and assignment, but in common language destructuring
> mean getting data out of data structure.
>
> Just wanted to share my concerns about the name of this SRFI.
>
> I'm also worried because I've never seen proper destructure-bind in Scheme.
> Maybe that's the reason I care so much about the name.
>
> [1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_destru.htm
> [2]
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Destructuring_assignment
>
>
> --
> Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Senior Front-End Developer
> https://jcubic.pl/me
>