[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fixnumXXX and fxXXX names, and other things

John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> William D Clinger scripsit:
>> Do you like the fxringXXX convention Marc Feeley
>> suggested, or would you prefer some other convention?
> I can live with it, I suppose.
> How about fxq (quiet) and fxs (signaling), by analogy with
> the IEEE notion of quiet and signaling NaNs?

What happened to the idea of "speaking" function names? I
already feels some discomfort at "saving" a whole character by
replacing FIX with FX, but ok. But FXQ, FXS...?

I'd actually prefer FIXNUM to be the prefix for error generating
procedures, and FIXRING (or FIXNUM-WRAP or something like that)
for procedures that wrap on overflow.

        -- Jorgen

((email . "forcer@xxxxxxxxx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/";)
 (gpg   . "1024D/028AF63C")   (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))