[r-t] Reverse methods

[Richard Smith]

Don Morrison wrote:

> On 8/4/06, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:
> > Except with principles, there is no requirement for the
> > reverse of a method to be called Reverse <whatever>.
>
> Is the reverse (ouch) of this true? Can I call an abitrary, unrelated
> to anything else method "Reverse Bumbershoot", or even "Reverse
> Bristol"?

Yes, absolutely.

RAS