>felix> And just Imagine the blank faces of your students when you
>felix> tell them about this curious CURRY SRFI that doesn't do currying.
>
>You're quoting me out of context here.  There's a clear connection
>between SRFI 26 and currying which is easily explained and the
>intuition of which is easily grasped.  It's one that occurred
>naturally to me, and it occurred naturally to Sebastian.

Yet it doesn't seem natural for all, or we wouldn't have this
discussion, right?

>It's your right to find it confusing or to find my arguments or Sebastian's
>weak.  But until you can find a better name or better arguments to
>convince Sebastian, it's his right to put whatever he wants into SRFI
>26.

I don't claim the opposite. Actually there are tons of better names:

SECTION

  because that's how other languages call it.

SPECIALIZE
PARTIAL-LAMBDA
PARTIAL-APPLY

  because that's what it actually does.

_I
$

  because that's at least abbreviating. Otherwise, why use this thing at all?

SRFI-26
FOOBAR
XYZ

  because nobody will confuse it with something else.

SCHOENFINKELIZE

  because that's so stupid that hopefully everybody will stay away from this. ;-)

See? Loads of alternatives, some of them even say what SRFI-26 is doing.

What's the goal of this SRFI? To abbreviate? Then use something
*really* short. To clarify? I *seriously* doubt that

(list-index (curry eq? <> x) foo)

is much clearer than

(list-index (lambda (y x) (eq? y x)) foo)

cheers,
felix