Re: Renaming muscles

[Akim Demaille]

Hi Pauls (or is it Paulves ? :)

The current question is about the naming convention for muscles, in
particular those delivering numbers of things.  I'm sorry to bother
you with such issues, but this has always been one of my worst
nightmares: finding names.

| Sorry for the delay
| > Hm.  So really, states_number is wrong?  Well, you have the final
| > call:
| > 
| >         - nstates
| 
| This is good, but the whole point was to renamed this to get a clearer
| name, wasn't it :-)

Not necessarily clearer, but more `name space' coherent.  I'd like to
have all the states related things to *start* with state_ or states_.

| 
| >         - number_of_states
| 
| This is clear and correct, but is a bit verbose.  Second choice.
| 
| >         - states_number_of
| 
| This is a bit of a twisted way of writing the above - not good.

It obeys my constraints.  Well, the constraints I try to follow.  I
like to view it as something object oriented, so read it as

        states.number_of

| Source code shouldn't read like a book's index :-)
| 
| >         - states_number
| 
| This is less clear than nstates - not good.

Because, as Tim emphasized, it sounds like a type, not like a number.
It was my first choice though.

| 
| >         - state_count
| 
| This is clear and not overly long - first choice.

Yep, I understand this.  But it collides with naming conventions
within bison.exe itself.  Note that we can align bison.exe's naming
convention on the skeleton's.

| Up to you to use state_count or number_of_states - they are both
| very clear.  Besides, as maintainer you'll have to use them more
| than I, a simple mailing list lurker :-)

Well, the thing is I might be mad and do something nobody else will
understand.  So lurkers are precious :)

Paul and Paul are two people who are both lurkers and pseudo Bison
maintainers, so their call will be the one.  Unless they disagree :)