[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Equivalence predicate version of memp
cowan at ccil.org
Fri Sep 29 14:18:58 EDT 2006
William D Clinger scripsit:
> I welcome the change of name from "any" to "exists", because the word
> "any" is ambiguous. If I say you should be able to run a portable
> R6RS program in any implementation that conforms to the R6RS, am I
> saying there exists an implementation that conforms to the R6RS and in
> which the program will run? No, I am saying the program should run in
> every system that conforms to the R6RS, even if no such systems have
> yet been constructed. The names used in the draft R6RS are unambiguous.
Good point, and it's certainly easy to get back the names "any" and
"every" if you prefer them. However, I think having "for-each" and
"forall" in the same language is confusing (even if a hyphen is added to
"forall"). At the risk of spawning another bikeshed thread, "some-of"
and "all-of" would not be subject to either objection.
Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
-- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun" cowan at ccil.org
More information about the r6rs-discuss