--- Eric Northup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 14:35, Jonathan S. Shapiro
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 14:21 -0500, Mark S. Miller
> wrote:
> > > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > > > [...] In honor
> > > > of their proposer, I am contemplating (markm+,
> markm-, etc.), but I will
> > > > get over it. [...]
> > >
> > > "safe+", "safe-", etc would have one fewer
> letter. I don't know about you ;),
> > > but I also find these names to be clearer as
> well.
...
>
> I don't like "safe+", "safe-", etc. because the
> question is not safety
> of the operation, the question is a matching of
> programmers' expectation
> and runtime behavior. All of the proposed operators
> can be safe if used
> correctly.
How about: ring+, ring-, etc.
Shawn
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
