> Honestly, I don't see where people should have problems with the "set n" description > : IIRC, such "convention" exists since MAME begining 15 years ago ... > > And IMO, "alternate set 1" would be hard to explain ...
... ehhh... maybe we _should_ document the naming convention somewhere, in that case...
I'm fine with the status quo, just trying to have an easy answer for n00b questions in the future...