> I think this is definitely something we should do if we want to confuse > people as much as possible :-)
This is likely true, seeing as I *still* have troubles keeping the various Lisp eq/eql/equal/equalp's straight. ;) > I would therefore vote that we keep these opcodes as verbose as > possible. So no eq/eql/equal, but rather > same_address/same_content/compare/compare_as_num/compare_as_string. Some of those are probably a little too verbose for my tastes. ;) We're already using 'eq' to perform equality testing, and in the interests of maintaining a consistent design I would choose to stick with something eq-related as opposed to changing it to 'same'. eqaddr/eqval? eq_addr/eq_val? eq_address/eq_value? With respects to the compare_as_num/compare_as_string opcodes, there's also already a 'cmp' opcode and there already seems to be the established naming scheme of opcodeX, where X is one of n/i/s/p, depending on the type being dealt with (ie. cleari, clearn, clears, clearp). cmpi/cmpn/cmps/cmpp? cmpasi/cmpasn/cmpass/cmpasp? cmp_as_i/cmp_as_n/cmp_as_s/cmp_as_p? Personally, I'd probably pick the first option in each of the above sets, though that is just my preference... :) Cory
