Wolfgang writes, >> WLİ_ASEARCH - ? ;) > >How about WL_IS_BEST_xxxx..
->groan<- ;) <> >> Besides, I think a name or >> mnemonic should be helpful in reminding us what it does rather than >> who did it. Dont you? > >Sure I do - but then, MAT_xxx isn't really very clear either It is if my toolkit happens to be called MATrix TOOLkit. Anyway, it was just an example. >(IMHO). If the list cleared all doubles anyway, we wouldn't >even need prefixes... Since the whole purpose is only to >avoid name clashes, perhaps using the author's name is the >best way to do it - else, if you have two routines to >compare strings, everyone will call them str_compare..... Im sure just about everyone has written standard utilities called UPPER$, LOWER$ and the like. So as long as they do the same thing it shouldnt matter. However, this discussion seems only to have shown up the futility of continuing it. The idea of a list might be handy if it is easily available (eg on someone's web site) to check for names that have already been used. It is only necessary to list toolkits that are in the wild (eg general programming toolkits and special commands.) I think it would be a good idea to add parameter information to the list, as well as the name of the toolkit it belongs to, as both pieces of information will help to evaluate the likelyhood of a *relevant* clash. Per
