Hi Seb,
I save my reply for the early morning..... Sebastien Lelong wrote: > I would also prefer print.jal, since print.jal prints things. format.jal > formats things, but also prints them. Rob, why do you prefer format.jal ? Yes, when people worked with typewriter terminals and line printers on a mainframe, the use of 'print' was obvious: putting something on paper. I suppose because dreadful 'backward compatibility' the term was retained, and even adopted in modern languages. But I have to see the first PIC application that does put something on paper.... As you all know from this and earlier discussions: I like breaking habits, especially bad habits and certainly when they lost their ground. And since most 'print' procedures are really just re-formatting data I think 'format' is much more appropriate, certainly more generic. We also could choose for a new name, what about 'stdio'? But I'm also pragmatic: I know that 'print' and its variants is commonly used in many programming languages. So I won't strongly object if the majority votes for 'print'. BTW Initially my vote for 'format' was only about the name of the library, not about names of procedures. Back to the real work..... Regards, Rob. -- Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
