[E-Lang] Name mangling

[Dean Tribble]

Below are random ideas that I am not advocating, but merely throwing into 
the pool....

At 10:19 AM 5/22/01 -0700, Ravi Pandya wrote:
>If we've already run into a case where there's a conflict, in such a small
>group of developers, then it's more common than I thought. In that case, it
>is probably best to keep the name mangling, ugly as it is - a conflict in
>classes you can't change is a show-stopper, whereas maintaining two sets of
>names is only an inconvenience.

A compromise might be to use the other proposed naming: "opAdd" rather than 
the more annoying "op__add" :-)

An alternative that I hesitate to suggest:  have collections and numbers 
(the most common utilities) have reasonable names in Java, and map them to 
op_blah in the E sugaring layer.