>>> locative
>>> ephemeron
>>> assertion
>>> violation
>>> reference
> I like these more than loc, eph, ass, vio, ref.
>
> Or what do you have in mind?

E.g. place, weak pair, check, error.

I don't mean to suggest we can adopt these specific words, merely to
point out that these sound sensible and the longer ones sound obtuse.

> PS I am not a native speaker of English, but I have never had a
> problem with these "big" (by whatever metric) words. At least to me,
> precision in wording is more important than brevity, so better use two
> not-so-short words for two different things than to name the two
> different things by the same short word. Personally, I think the
> existing traditions in naming should also be respected if it makes
> sense. E.g., R6RS makes the distinction between "errors" and
> "violations" (in its condition hierarchy). When future Scheme
> standards adopt this division, there are good reasons for sticking to
> these established terms instead of calling these types, say, "user
> error" and "programmer error", just to get rid of the "big" word
> "violation".

Having to make fine distinctions between similar concepts means we have
too many concepts. Over the long term, most software projects morph into
the Titanic. Scheme is getting there. There's nothing we can do in the
short term about the existing conceptual bloat in RnRS but we should be
cautious about adding new stuff.