[no subject]

[Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>]

    Date: 18 August 1980 09:22-EDT
    From: Carl W. Hoffman <CWH at MIT-MC>
    To:   RWK
    cc:   LISP-FORUM

        Date: 17 August 1980 23:10-EDT
        From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>

        Because when I look at code and see "<", I think "Aha, fixnums
        are being compared", and when I see "CHAR-<" I think "Aha,
        characters are being compared.

    While I agree with the objections you raised in your most recent message, I
    disagree with this one.  (> NEXT-CHAR #/A) makes it fairly clear that
    characters are being compared, just as (> ITEM-COUNT ITEM-LIMIT) makes it
    clear that integral quantities are being dealt with.  Granted this is an
    informal convention, but if type information is present in the operand
    names, it shouldn't be necessary in the operator names as well.

What about (> (GET-NEXT-COMMAND COMMAND-STREAM)
	      COMMAND-STREAM)?
What about even bigger constructions with computed arguments?  You can't encode
ALL information in the called operator name!  Having the type information in
the operator name guarentees it will be easy to find.  If all code were made of
one-liners life would indeed be simple and bug-free but in real code the more
information included, the greater the likelyhood of having the information
where you want it.