[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Naming BABY-DOE
- To: rrrs-authors@life.ai.mit.edu
- Subject: Re: Naming BABY-DOE
- From: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 06:42:04 EDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:38:00 -0700. <19890928233804.6.ALAN@MR-BUN.parc.xerox.com>
- Posted-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 06:42:04 EDT
>> From: Alan Bawden <bawden@parc.xerox.com>
>> I presume we have all agreed that the order of arguments to BABY-DOE is
>> (BABY-DOE <generator> <receiver>)? That is, you are certain that nobody
>> thinks that certain names only make sense given certain argument orders?
I don't recall anyone supporting is call for the reverse argument
order, so I assume the one you gave is it. Of course, I could have
lost some mail....
John