>>>>> "Shriram" == Shriram Krishnamurthi <xxxxxx@cs.brown.edu> writes:

Shriram> Michael Sperber [Mr.  Preprocessor] wrote:

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

Shriram> It's Dr. Sperber, actually, if we want to give this little devil his
Shriram> due.  (Or, this being Germany, it's probably Herr Prof. Dr. Sperber
Shriram> Dipl.-Ing. or something along those lines.)

I'll point out that it's "Dr. Egner" as well ;-)

Shriram> That said, Mike:

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

Shriram> Why not standardize the term across related languages?  The specific
Shriram> argument you're advancing above is pretty weak -- you can do better.

I'm all for that if the term is well-chosen and the analogy is plainly
visible.  Unfortunately, I don't think either of these holds.

I think I've argued why I think the name is poorly chosen.

Moreover, it isn't clear that the connection between a syntactic
construct in ML/Haskell specific to binary operators which looks
basically entirely unlike SRFI 26 is all that obvious.  (Of course we
all know the *formal* connection.  I don't think it matters as SRFI 26
is really about a primarily *practical* construct.)

As for CURRY, I think Sebastian has argued much better than I could
why he picked the name and why he's sticking to it.  He's also argued
why the arguments he's heard so far haven't convinced him.  I haven't
seen any substantially new arguments (or better names) advanced here,
and simply repeating the old ones won't help matters.

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