There was a thread on this recently, but I'm not sure what was
resolved. Do we have a standard naming convention for opcodes?
Personally, I'd like to see that we stick with (what I thought was) the
original plan: a nice, simple ruleset that produces long but predictable
names.
- the opcode name starts with a short mnemonic prefix (e.g. mul)
- every argument adds an '_x', where the exact value of 'x' is
determined by the type of the args
So, yes, you'd get 'mul_i_ic_ic', but who cares? It's not really
that hard to type, and it is absolutely unambiguous. If you want to make
the interpreter magically deduce the full opcode name from the prefix,
that's cool, too.
Just my 1 penny,
Dave
