About =. Well, yes, you can see '=' as the equality operator. Or, as I do, you can see it as "Arc copies the C style, where '=' is for assignation". So I thought well, if Arc copies C, let's use '==' for equality, instead of 'is'. But there are some problems with that. How do you name 'iso' and 'isa' then? The good point with the isx nomenclature is that it is coherent. One could use '===' for 'is and '==' for 'iso, but still, I can't think how to cope with 'isa using the '=' notation. And '===' is too long.

So finally, I'm OK with the '=' and the isx family.

About 'def and 'mac. Yes, yes, true, it's incoherent. 'def is a verb and 'mac is a name. But in a way, that's reflects that there is difference between a macro (definition) and a function (definition). After reflexion, I was ok with it.

About lambda. I prefer 'fn' over 'ld/lb'. In some other languages or even in Lisp code, when you want to refer to a function, you call it 'f' or 'fn' or the like. And everyone understands that. The meaning of 'ld' would not be evident. It means 'load' to me, at first look.

In the same "let's-not-abandon-the-lambda-terminology" vein, Haskell uses '\' to denote a lambda, imitating the glyph of the lambda character in the greek alphabet. I'd prefer that over 'ld/lb', but this is, IMO, a bit crappy anyway. I know many people, me the first, that couldn't understand what this '\' meant at first look. '\' is too much of a special char in the current computing world (basically: ask any programmer, he'll tell you it's the escape sequence). Since we don't live in a full UTF-8 world, and it'd not be usable to use the real 'λ' to denote an anonymous function in a source file, well don't try to badly copy this glyph. Plus, OK, '\' is shorter, but on my Azerty keyboard, and I suppose it's the same on a Qwerty, it's slower to type '\' than to type 'fn'.

And Clojure has also adopted the "fn" name.

As for def and mac I think fun and mac would reflect the difference just as well as they stand for completely different words. ;) But anyway, for me it would be mainly about "freeing" def, so it could be used for assignment.

  arc> (= a 42
          b '(1 2 3)
          c "hello")
  arc> (is a 42)         ; test for equality, read as "_Is_ a equals to 42?"
  t
  arc> (isa a 'int)      ; test for type, read as "_Is_ 'a' _a_(n) integer?"
  t
  arc> (iso b '(1 2 3))  ; test for isomorphy ("same form" in greek), 'is doesn't work for lists (normal)
  t
  arc> (is c "hello")    ; "_is_ c equals to 'hello'?"
  t
  arc> (isa c 'string)   ; "_is_ c _a_ string?"
  t

Yep, fun and mac are completely different words. I agree it could suffice. But 'fun would then be too close to 'fn (anonymous function/lambda) to replace 'def (define a function) IMO. Would prefer to change 'mac to 'defmac in this case.

About lambda: anyway what's the point with absolutely wanting to keep this word?! Church called his work "Lambda Calculus" because on the blackboard he used 'λ' because it's quick to write on a blackboard: two traits. But "lambda" is just an arbitrary name. I really don't see a reason to absolutely keep it when programming on a computer, where you can't quickly type "λ". Oh and "lambda" feels somewhat so pedantic.

Ah ah, I really laughed reading this. And jokes are to be taken... seriously :-D [1]

> I notice I prefer euphonious names

I respect your preference of course, but since we are in a "what's your personal opinion" thread, I'll give mine.

When I think about "fn" in my head it sounds "F-N", like the Unix `ls'/`cd' sound "L-S" / "C-D". I actually like these "saccatero sounds". In English, how do you pronounce "ISP" or "BTW" in conversation? Aren't people saying "bee-tee-double U" sometimes?

---