On 11 April 2012 08:49, Hans Hübner hans.huebner@gmail.com wrote:

There has been no progress in the discussion because there has been no clear winner with respect to how the partial application macros should be named.  While I understand the objections against using the term "curry" to name partial application, the naming is still a question of style.

Unfortunately, the wrong usage of the term "curry" has been going on in the Common Lisp world for years now, and many people have moved over to using Alexandria's CURRY and RCURRY instead of the versions in their private library.  At this point, it would be really upsetting to remove those names from Alexandria again, however "wrong" they may be.

So, if anything, there should be additional names that are more correct.  Given the discussion from 2009, I'd say we need CURRY == PAPPLY == PARTIALLY-APPLY and RCURRY == RPAPPLY == REVERSE-PARTIALLY-APPLY.  If the matter is important to you, please submit a patch.

Hans pretty much nails it. I'm fine adding PARTIAL-APPLY and REVERSE-PARTIAL-APPLY as synomyms, but not so wild about PAPPLY and RPAPPLY.

Cheers,

-- Nikodemus

On 11 April 2012 13:59, Tomohiro Matsuyama tomo@cx4a.org wrote:

BTW, I have three candidates for synonyms:

1. PARTIAL-APPLY (wrong grammar?)
2. PARTIALLY-APPLY (too descriptive?)
3. APPLY-PARTIALLY (used in GNU Emacs, natural for me)

I would go with #1, but #3 doesn't sound bad either. ...but I'm not a native speaker either.

Cheers,

-- nikodemus

Unfortunately, the wrong usage of the term "curry" has been going on in the Common Lisp world for years now, and many people have moved over to using Alexandria's CURRY and RCURRY instead of the versions in their private library.  At this point, it would be really upsetting to remove those names from Alexandria again, however "wrong" they may be.

well, keeping on calling a spade a 'hammer is also upsetting once we got to know that it's not called a 'spade by the rest of the world... :)

sticking to old versions in the age of version control is trivial. and if it's not, then that is the real problem that needs fixing.

i'm being philosophical here, promoting consistency (one may say truth even), without a strong opinion on the actual issue.