Sebastian Egner writes:

 > The fact that the macro does partial application and not proper currying
 > has indeed spawned a discussion about the name. Please refer to the
 > previous thread initiated by Stephan Houben.
 >
 > In my reply to Stephan I propose the name
 >
 >         partial-apply
 >
 > instead of 'curry'. As always with these kind of choices, a great deal
 > of it is simply a matter of taste and personal (programming) background.
 > As I have little experience with ML, my preference is 'partial-apply' as
 > it also refers to the 'apply' function of Scheme.
 >
 > Would 'partial-apply' be fine with you?

        Well, it would be better than CURRY.  On the other hand, I think
it's a potential source of confusion, since the interface to your macro is
different from that of APPLY, which requires its last argument to be a
list.

        In my work, I've used the name CALL for the following procedure,
which is like APPLY except that the arguments are provided severally
instead of being bundled into a list:

                (define call
                  (lambda (procedure . arguments)
                    (apply procedure arguments)))

I think of your macro as ``partial CALL'' rather than ``partial APPLY.''

--
   John David Stone - Lecturer in Computer Science and Philosophy
           Manager of the Mathematics Local-Area Network
           Grinnell College - Grinnell, Iowa 50112 - USA
     xxxxxx@cs.grinnell.edu - http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~stone/