Another problem with "is" is that it isn't a noun phrase, which is
appropriate for creating an object. "Make-assertion" would make sense
to me.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:20 PM Jakub T. Jankiewicz <xxxxxx@jcubic.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2026 21:39:28 +0700
> Andrew Tropin <xxxxxx@trop.in> wrote:
>
> > On 2026-04-03 11:56, Jakub T. Jankiewicz wrote:
> >
> > > The name `is`, in its current form, is problematic. It doesn't make sense
> > > semantically. `is` should compare two values not compare if something is
> > > truthy.
> > >
> > > In normal sentence you have:
> > >
> > > x is y
> > >
> > > so the prefix notation should be:
> > >
> > > (is x y)
> > >
> >
> > Hi Jakub!
> >
> > Your idea is very reasonable.  Especially for the case with two
> > arguments.  For one argument `is` can be read differently.
> >
> > (define your-idea "`is` should compare two values")
> > (is (very-reasonable? your-idea))
> > (is (string=? your-idea "`is` should assert truthness"))
> >
> > Try instead of `x is y` pattern use `it is so that ...`.
> >
> > it is so that your-idea conforms very-reasonable? predicate.
> >
> > is it so?
>
> but in your "is" the "what" is missing, you can't understand the code by just
> reading it, you will need to read the documentation? Every symbol in R7RS have
> the reason for the check (symbol? string?). `is` in your case is like using
> question mark without a proper noun.
>
> >
> > There are a few thoughts on the topic:
> > 1. I'm not a native english speaker, but for me such reading make sense.
> > So, probably is asserting thruthness of its argument can be a valid
> > option.  I may be wrong, but would be glad to hear input
> >
> > 2. It's much shorter.  The test looks cleaner and easier to read.
> > Subjective, of course.
> >
> > 3. assert is an overloaded term and `assert` is very likely provided in
> > many implementations and in r6rs. `is` is free from assert's "baggage".
>
> `is` is short and not taken, ok. But it doesn't make sense with one argument.
> Is is exactly like `=` that also doesn't make sense with one argument, it
> checks nothing.
>
> Consider different name if you must use one argument like `valid?` or
> `true?`. Since this is what you're checking.
>
> --
> Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Senior Front-End Developer
> https://jakub.jankiewicz.org
> https://lips.js.org
> https://snapp.md
> https://koduj.org