David A. Wheeler scripsit:

> It was hard enough coming up with a unique name.  prefix-expressions =>
> p-expressions sounds like "pee-expressions", and function-expressions
> => f-expressions sounds like "f*n-expressions".  "m" and "s" are
> already taken.  I'm willing to entertain alternatives (got any?),
> but I'm not really excited about creating yet another name.  It took
> a long discussion to get to that one. Besides, if the biggest problem
> is the name, life is good :-).

If you go from three layers (c-exprs, n-exprs, sweet-exprs) to just two
(c-exprs that may contain n-exprs, sweet-exprs), then you don't need a
separate name for n-exprs.

--
If you understand,                      John Cowan
   things are just as they are;         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
if you do not understand,               xxxxxx@ccil.org
   things are just as they are.