[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] forall should be for-all for consistency with for-each

From: John Cowan <cowan>
Date: Tue Nov 14 12:38:07 2006

Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:

> In <12. List utilities>, please change the name of forall to for-
> all. This is consistent with for-each, and "forall" is not an
> English word in any case.

+1 (or better yet go with the SRFI-1 versions instead).

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan_at_ccil.org
We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals;
more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more
leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of
the opportunities to cultivate our better natures.  --Samuel Gompers

Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 12:38:03 UTC