On 2012-06-19 17:54:48 -0400, Harry Spier wrote: > 2. Why the names arithmetic-shift and integer-length instead of > bitwise-shift and bitwise-length ?
Late reply, but here's a reason: SRFI-33[1] and SRFI-60[2] already use these names. Although it looks like Racket's `arithmetic-shift` name predates SRFI-33 (and was more or less tradition among Schemes). It also differentiates from a `logical-shift`, should one ever be defined. Apparently `integer-length` was also the traditional name by the time the SRFIs rolled around. [1]: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-33/srfi-33.txt [2]: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-60/srfi-60.html Cheers, Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev