I think they may have simple misunderstood what your example was about (G, not asm(...)).
On the other hand their criticism contradicts their earlier point about widely used public/stdlib function names best having short names.
On the other hand their criticism contradicts their earlier point about widely used public/stdlib function names best having short names.
As a consequence, they shouldn't use very short names. They should let the 1-3 letter names available for local code. (But there are exceptions, of course. There always are.)