23 Sep
2005
23 Sep
'05
8:28 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
So, there was a really interesting and hot discussion about namings. Many opinions were expressed and I'd like to make some roundup.
I still think that the question "should X be included at all" is slightly more fundamental than "should X be named rearm, protect, or on". But this may be just me.
It's not _just_ you. I definitely agree. Why hasn't Peter's question been addressed?
I guess I've missed it somewhere in the thread. I have given the example in the post nearby.