On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:44:35AM -0400, David T. Pierson wrote: > (Presumably if equally concise names that better reflected function > signatures were available, they would have been used in the first > place.)
Sorry for the double post. I should have added "equally lucid" along with "equally concise". Perhaps what I should have asked was simply whether there exist names that better indicate function signatures but are still good in all or most other important aspects, and whether it is worth breaking compatibility for such. David _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
