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

From: Trent Buck <trentbuck>
Date: Tue Nov 14 13:31:36 2006

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:38:03PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> 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).

+1
-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 13:30:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:00 UTC