John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> writes:

> William D Clinger scripsit:
>
>> Do you like the fxringXXX convention Marc Feeley
>> suggested, or would you prefer some other convention?
>
> I can live with it, I suppose.
>
> How about fxq (quiet) and fxs (signaling), by analogy with
> the IEEE notion of quiet and signaling NaNs?

What happened to the idea of "speaking" function names? I
already feels some discomfort at "saving" a whole character by
replacing FIX with FX, but ok. But FXQ, FXS...?

I'd actually prefer FIXNUM to be the prefix for error generating
procedures, and FIXRING (or FIXNUM-WRAP or something like that)
for procedures that wrap on overflow.

Regards,
        -- Jorgen

--
((email . "xxxxxx@forcix.cx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/")
 (gpg   . "1024D/028AF63C")   (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))