Hi

> On 16. Feb 2021, at 00:39, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 05:01:37PM -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:00 AM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I disagree with this.  Only certain processes are named.  Including the
>>> destiny name of unnamed processes just introduces noise.  By all means
>>> include the name of named processes, but please *don???t* add verbosity where
>>> it is unhelpful.
>>> 
>> 
>> +1.  You are so right.  Assigning a *name* for human consumption
>> establishes the intent of the human's desire to utilize its #name as the
>> basis for its consumption.  If specific identity distinction is
>> needed, then set it as part of its name, but we should not include
>> arbitrary attributes in its #printString.  If such additional identity
>> attributes are needed, they should be consumed by sending the appropriate
>> messages from the appropriate places (UI).
>> 
> 
> Eliot and Chris both think that this was a bad idea. I don't understand
> the objection, but if no one speaks up in support of it, I will revert
> the merge in a day or two.

I'd like to retain the synthetic name.
It certainly helps people like me who read and write with a voice in their head.

Best
	-Tobias