With a few exceptions, I'd be reluctant to assign names (mnemonics) that would be used by other people. It seems to me most of that responsibility is best left to the individual programmer. But I'm interested in hearing suggestions.
The name should make a clear statement about what the instruction does. But what these NOP's do isn't very clear (there are one or two exceptions). That's why I think a person should take stock of what the instruction does then invent their own name. That way they can't take an incorrect inference from a name I invented!
I'd be comfortable assigning a name (1~NOP perhaps?) to the one-cycle NOP's. Likewise I'd be OK assigning a name to the Immediate Mode NOP's (2 byte, 2 cycle). SKIP_1BYTE (or whatever) would be alright. But after that things get progressively fuzzier.
For example, SKIP_2BYTES (or whatever) is less clear because the Absolute Mode NOP's that do this carry with them the risk of touching an I/O device. (Because it's absolute Mode, I mean. An ordinary instruction like BIT absolute has the same risk.) Anyway, a name like SKIP_2BYTES is perhaps too glib. This instruction isn't worry-free the way SKIP_1BYTE is. Maybe it's better to let the person take stock of what's what then invent their own name.
