That's my understanding too. However see the latest idea to use CamelCase names, given at the bottom of: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary/FormalPageNames
The names currently offered could be shortened. However I'd go for names that are memorable and systematically derivable without arcane knowledge. Cute kawaii shortenings often aren't worth the keystrokes they save. Ian On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Sherlock, Ric <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Brian Schott > >> Please correct me if I am wrong in assuming that the effect of this >> naming scheme will be explicitly to name pages, ie link names, in the >> wiki and implicitly to suggest the way we communicate about these >> primitives in written discussions like the forums and the wiki and in >> spoken discussions, too. >> >> Considering the second (implicit) assumed usage above, I lean toward >> the more colloquial, abbreviated forms using dot and bang and >> (back?)tick and curlybrackets and so on, or at least mentioning such >> alternative names on each page. The formal names of the red book put >> me off a little especially the one prefixed with ascii. > > In my view we are only using these as the page names because the wiki & html > won't allow us to use the symbols themselves. > > On the forum and wiki in general I expect that we will continue to just use > the symbols themselves or perhaps the English name given to the actual verb > we are interested in (e.g. Ceiling ). > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
