[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
name for SEFTable
- To: <tribble>
- Subject: name for SEFTable
- From: Mark S. Miller <mark>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 89 22:23:17 PDT
- Cc: <xtech>
- In-reply-to: <Eric>,52 PDT <8910230434.AA28453@xanadu>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 21:34:52 PDT
From: tribble (Eric Dean Tribble)
How about ConstTable or ConstantTable. That's essentially what it is.
Shouldn't that be spelled "ConsTable"? Replaying our latter phone
conversation, it is interesting to note that C++'s (and ANSI C's?)
"const" corresponds to our ScruX, not our ImmuX. I like ScruX better
that ConsX for two reasons: ConsX will cause some readers to think it
has something to do with cons-cells (note that we can't say ConstX,
because that isn't symmetrical with our other names), and we aren't
using C++'s "const" on the declarations. Using C++'s "const"
promiscuously is something that we should eventually consider, but it
is something that has to be done "all at once" across the code. It is
VERY painful to try to introduce "const" incrementally.