Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think I'm the one who introduced the following convention in xtla: > > - tla-* functions are the functions visible to the user > > - tla--* functions are only for internal use. > > This convention is not always used as I intended initially (there are > now several interactive functions named tla-- for example). Anyway, > it's not easy to say wether a function or variable is internal or not > (are the tla-*-cookie variables used by tla-revisions, tla-changes, > tla-tree-lint, ... internal ?). > > So, I wonder if I shouldn't change my mind and rename all the > functions as tla-*, and forget about the "double dash". > > What's your opinion?
I like the distinction with the double dash. We should rename the interactive functions to tla-* I would keep the others as they are. If there is a case with a wrong use of tla--* or tla-*, just rename it. Stefan.
