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

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."

felix> I don't understand that example you give. Once a term has been coined
felix> it might as well be used. Would your students find `named let' intuitive?

They actually do.  I don't see why a term coined somewhere else needs
to be used *here*.

felix> No offense, Mr. Egner, but this is ridiculous.

I'm Mr. Sperber, actually.  (Even though some people might find
"Mr. Egner" more intuitive :-) )

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla