On 9/29/06, John Cowan <cowan_at_ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Good point, and it's certainly easy to get back the names "any" and
> "every" if you prefer them. However, I think having "for-each" and
> "forall" in the same language is confusing (even if a hyphen is added to
> "forall"). At the risk of spawning another bikeshed thread, "some-of"
> and "all-of" would not be subject to either objection.
While I have no strong objection to any of these names, I wonder why
the names of these boolean-producing procedures do not end in '?' as
per the stated naming conventions.
--
Carl Eastlund
Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 15:09:44 UTC