Not STL. But the paths are in svg and @soegaard2 redid them for metapict.

> Anton van Straaten > Feb 13, 2003, 1:38:34 AM to comp.lang.scheme > > > > An important part of every scheme library whose implementation fails > > > to provide it natively: > > > > > > ;;; the universal shortcut notation for > > > ;;; ridiculously-long-named-function…. > > > (define call/cc call-with-current-continuation) > > > > Would you consider writing this up as a SRFI? :wink: > > I’d like to propose that this SRFI be made more general. In my upcoming > implementation of Scheme, oriented towards people who type very slowly (on keyboards, that is), I have abbreviated call-with-current-continuation to > ccc, which is much quicker to type even than call/cc, and thus is clearly > superior for my purposes. > > To avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on (possible future) implementors > such as myself, I originally thought that the SRFI that’s really needed > would be something more like “A Generalized Facility for the Abbreviation of > Existing Identifiers”. > > However, it occured to me that the thing needing abbreviation might not > already be an identifier. Based on a rigorous formal analysis of the > semantics of identifier binding in Scheme, I have determined that what’s > really needed is “A Generalized Facility for the Binding of Abbreviated > Identifiers to Values”. > > But wait, there’s more: further thorough and careful analysis has indicated > that it is also possible to support non-abbreviated names with this new > mechanism! > > So I’d like to entitle my proposal “A Generalized Facility for the Binding > of Both Abbreviated and Non-Abbreviated Identifiers to Values”. To support > this new mechanism, I propose a new special form named > ‘bind-abbreviated-or-non-abbreviated-identifier-to-value’, which should have the following form: > > (bind-abbreviated-or-non-abbreviated-identifier-to-value <variable> > <expression>) > > Since I understand that SRFIs require a reference implementation, I offer > the following: > > (define-syntax bind-abbreviated-or-non-abbreviated-identifier-to-value > (syntax-rules () > ((_ identifier value) > (define identifier value)))) > > I am aware of only one possible problem with my proposal at this time: in > actual implementations, it may be desirable to abbreviate the name of this > new form. Unfortunately, the above reference implementation does not appear capable of being used to abbreviate its own name. Most likely, this is a bug in the reference implementation, which I confess was developed rather hurriedly. OTOH, this limitation may in fact be due to Scheme’s notoriously restrictive hygienic macro facility, which is only Turing-complete when wielded by Oleg K. or Al-abrador Petrofsky. However, I am confident that this minor detail will be resolved during the SRFI process. That said, I > think we have the makings of a solid SRFI here, which will occupy an > important place within the SRFI system, similar to that of [1]. > > Anton > > References: > [1] IETF RFC–1149, “A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on > Avian Carriers”, David Waitzman, 1990.