Re: Naming BABY-DOE

[ramsdell@linus.mitre.org]

Let me try that again.

>> 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 his (KMP's) call for the reverse
argument order, so I assume the one you gave is it.  Of course, I
could have lost some mail....

John