On 5/20/05, wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <x44qcybbfc(_dot_)fsf_-_(_at_)footbone(_dot_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wayne
<wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> writes:
I [Julian] would like to vote on:
* the s/prefix/$SEMANTICALLY_DESCRIPTIVE_NAME/ issue,
[This] item was decided that we should discuss it more here since
we couldn't immediately come up with a good
$SEMANTICALLY_DESCRIPTIVE_NAME.
Let's delve into this a little bit.
Right now, the (optional) character mechanism name is called the
"prefix", and can be one of "+", "-", "~" or "?". Julian doesn't like
the name "prefix" because it describes its syntactic function, not its
semantics.
Personally, I don't care too much about this point and I'm reluctant
to change it unless a much better name can be found. I am concerned
about the confusion that will be caused by changing the name. There
is a lot of documentation out there that would have to be updated.
Also, even in the draft, I think it would be all too easy to miss
spots, or change things that shouldn't be changed, or change the name
and not get the grammar right.
The suggested names that I have heard are:
* sign
* mode
* indicator
* action
* result
* match-result
Unless I see a lot of consensus on one name and a consensus that this
is really a worthwhile change, I will vote no on any proposed changes.
-wayne
Leave it as is. As long as people understand the meaning and
functionality it really doesn't matter what you call it (How about
"foo"?). Making a change at this point creates potential confusion for
no discernable good reason. If it was a big deal then we would have
heard people asking/complaining or generally making noise by now. It
aint broke so don't fix it.
As usual, just my 2 cents.
Mike