That's a great name. :) Robby
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Greg Hendershott <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, I love a good bikeshedding thread! ;) > > I think JCG nailed it: > > most > > - It's not excessively numeric. > > - Unlike "best" it's not judge-y or normative. > > - The polarity isn't _too_ weird for negatives. (Although "least > <quality>" might be smoother English, "most <opposite-quality>" or > "most {un,in}-<quality>" is usually clear enough. Disagree? Define > the negation, `least`, too.) > > > In short, "most" is the most general adjective to use here. (See what > I did there. ;)) > > Also the best. :) > > > p.s. Although `find-most` is OK, IMO `find-` is usually a noise prefix > from the Department of Redundancy Department. Sort of like naming a > function `return-foo` instead of just `foo`. What else would a > function do except find or return foo? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
