Alan Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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!
And this opens the door to stuff like C< no more 'rolled_loops' >. I'm
not entirely sure that that would be a good thing.
--
Piers
