Attila Lendvai wrote: >> Usability demands an asdf:build function. The name may vary, but >> shorter is better. >> asdf:b or asdf:bnm (build 'n' munge?) might do, too. > > these sound awful to me, but then i'm against abbreviations in general > and always have fuzzy completion on my TAB... > > a perfect candidate for this semantics would be 'operate', but sadly > that's already taken. >
"Prepare," which would also be a good candidate, is also taken. :-/ "Ready" might be ok. Not great, but OK. Best, r
