We have a proposal to rename "nfx" to something else that's unlikely to be
user-created, such as "$nfx" or "$infix-notation$". I would prefer "$nfx" if
its name is changed at all.
Anyone else agree? Disagree? Further comments?
--- David A. Wheeler
=============
Per Bothner said:
I don't see it. Effectively, you're making "nfx" a reserved identifier
for any program that uses c-expressions - even though "nfx" does not
appear in the user's code. That seems a bug.
> or that there's an existing "nfx" macro you want to invoke.
Well, there may be an existing nfx variable or macro that you'd
invoke accidentally:
(let ((nfx (number-fluid-expressions x))
(nx (number-total-expressions x)))
{nfx / nx})
But I can't see why you'd want to accidentally invoke nfx,
which will happen if it's in the "user's namespace" (to use C/C++
terminology). If somebody wants to re-bind the meaning of
c-expressions, then redefining a $nfx$ macro is easy enough, but don't
hijack an identifier the user might be using innocently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
