On 27 Sep 2000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > > Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
> > > need to ruin the cuteness.
> >
> > "use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
>
> We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
> C<use fewer 'rolled_loops'> for when we want to be grammatically
> correct. Or am I just being silly now?
C< use less 'recursion' > sounds just find to me.
The negation of C< use less 'rolled_loops' >,
C< use more 'unrolled_loops' >, does not sound very weird at all.
Weren't we planning on haveing a use more as an opposite of use less? If
so, let cuteness prevail!
Alan Gutierrez
