soo wrote:
> Why not let-recursive?  Why not exponent?  Why not abstract?

Because like fmt, these identifiers don't give any hint as to what the
procedure you've specified does.

> But I don't adhere to this name of the procedure and I can follow Whatever
> most people agree to.

It's difficult to recommend the name of a procedure when there is no
discussion of what purpose that procedure serves.  If you tell me what this
procedure does in English and without referring to the fmt procedure, I can
recommend a name.

> The word reminds me of a procedure FORMAT.

If this procedure is related to the SRFI 28 (Basic Format Strings) or SRFI 48
(Intermediate Format Strings) or Common Lisp's FORMAT, then you need to state
that explicitly in the document.  You also need to state the nature of the
relationship and, in the case of the SRFIs, the dependencies, conflicts, and
replacements to those SRFIs.

> Even though you are in the right, that's none of your business.

Well, this is the comment period -- I'm just trying to help.

Moreover, the editors may reject a proposal because it does not meet the
requirements listed in the SRFI Process Document.  Several of the issues I've
raised deal with the document not meeting those requirements.

Luckily, those problems are the easiest to fix.

David