>On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> Gordon, you're obviously not one of those people who, as a kid, was
>> occasionally called upon in school to spell antidisestablishmentarian.
>> Yes, it's a real word.

>They _made_ you spell it?

Ha.  You just don't appreciate how lucky you were to rebel against
Britain. Some of us even had to learn what it meant and about the
history of the Church of England.  For my taste, the connotations of
`disestablish' are ... not entirely appropriate.


>Though I agree that disestablish is a bit unwieldy. I'd vote for
>attach/detach.

I for one hope we're going to get more dynamic configuration hooks:
filesystems, network protocols, ...  etc.

I guess someone likes _establish()/_disestablish(), since there's such
precedent for it; but several people seem to think it's unecessarily
unwieldy.  Why do we need unwieldy suffixes, esp. now that, e.g.,
devices are going to allow _detach() entry points?

Sigh.  It's a small point in the scheme of things, but isn't elegance
part of good design?