LOG vs LN

["Michael R. Blair" <ziggy@hx.lcs.mit.edu>]

 I do not understand why LOG in Scheme is the natural logarythm.
I would have expected it to be base 10 logarythm and for the natural
logarythm (i.e., base e) to be called ln, since this is the standard
name among math texts.

 I realize that this is what Common LISP does, so please don't plead
compatibility (with it or any other language...like Footran). I am
fishing for a more substantive reason.

 I also noticed in the rrrs-authors archive that Kent D. had once
asked why LOG does not take an optional base argument. I did not
find any replies to this. Granted (log n b) = (/ (log n) (log b)),
I would think better precision could be achieved for example in
taking log base 2 (a.k.a. lg) of powers of 2...or am I deluded?

 Given the fervor of the MAX v SUPRA name debate, dare I suggest
that we rename LOG to LN for the same ``neophyte programmer''
reasons? After all, I just naturally assumed that LOG was base
10 until it bit me.
						~Ziggy