From: <lm...@bi...> - 2006-11-04 15:25:58
|
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:03:09AM -0800, Will Duquette wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Tim Daly, Jr. wrote: > > > > >On Nov 3, 2006, at 11:06 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > >>>>But that said, what was wrong with "lexpr"? > >>> > >>>These things come down to matters of taste, I suppose, > >>>but to my eye it looks like a cryptic unixism. > >> > >>Hmm. Cryptic is bad. But "=" is less cryptic than "lexpr"? > >>Not really seeing that line of reasoning but that's just me. > > I don't see "lexpr" as cryptic--it's an "L-expression", where > the meaning of "L" will be well-defined. It's certainly no > more cryptic than "lindex"...or than "expr", as far as that > goes. Right, we're in violent agreement. And as Tim said, that's enough discussion, anyone who doesn't like it can alias it to whatever they like in their code. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com |