Re: operation naming conventions

[Gregor Kiczales <Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM>]

    From: Dan Carnese <CARNESE@SRI-KL.ARPA>

    The convention in question is to prepend the name of the class to
    the name of operations associated with it, e.g., window-draw-line.

I thought the convention in question was the one that Moon and I had
been using for naming generic functions.  That convention is NOT "to
prepend the name of the class to the name of operation associated with
it".  That convention IS "to (usually) prepend the name of a protocol to
the name of the operation".

So changing the name of a class has no effect on the name of generic
functions.

I think it is clear that no default value for conc-name is ever going to
be the basis for a really useful convention for naming generic
functions.  That is why I didn't think we were talking about the
*convention* you would get if you just used the default value of
conc-name (whatever it might be) all the time.