>>>>> "felix" == felixundduni  <felix> writes:

>>
>> > It doesn't look as though the poster knows what "curry" means
>> > outside the context of this SRFI.
>>
>> That is quite true -- as I say, he's trying to _find out_ what
>> currying does.  So why is he looking at SRFI-26?  Because it deals with a
>> macro named CURRY -- if the macro were called SECTION instead, he probably
>> would never have seen SRFI-26.
>>

felix> I agree.

felix> (After all, what's so "unintuive" about `section'? After all
felix> this is *exactly* what SRFI-26 does. Using terminology that is
felix> already in common use (Haskell) is the obvious solution, IMHO)

I think, when you're arguing about intuition, you need to show why
something is intuitive, not why something is not unintuitive.  Many
Scheme programmers aren't Haskell programmers or ML programmers first.
When I tell students I'm teaching ML or Haskell "this is called
operator section," there's always row after row of blank faces.  They
don't find this intuitive at all.  I completely fail to see why it
should be "obvious."

--
Cheers =8-} M.
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla