hi ash On 3 Dec 2003, at 09:59, ASHWIN Suresh wrote:
Sorry to jump in to this thread this way, and perhaps it is too late now.
But, have the people here considered using the term "resolve"
for this concept?
Perhaps the interface could be named Resolver, with the method resolve().
I can think of ${foo} > xyz as resolving the definition rather than simple
substitution,
thow at a lower level of abstraction, it is substitution.
If this has been considered and vetoed, please ignore my email.
i'm usually pretty bad on naming at the best of times - and worse when i'm tied (too many lists, too little sleep 8-)
but i think that substitution is what the top level interface does (rather than resolution).
resolver is also an overused word in xml. we'd probably need to prefix it with an adjective - VariableResolver, say. i think that VariableResolver is probably a slightly better name than VariableExpander for the interface decoupling the variable expansion/resolution implementation but i think that simon's original name is very reasonable. i'd be happy to go with the consensus on this. comments anyone?
One more point:
The spelling "substituter" feels more natural to me than "substitutor".
cf.: to write --> writer to drive --> driver to expand --> expander
For Latinate words, the pattern is usually -or.
Constructor, translator, delegator, etc.
Whenever, the agent form is formed out of removal of -ion, the preferred
suffix is -or.
Thus, the more appropriate form is substitutor.
Again, perhaps this was already discussed.
you seem to have put a lot more thought into it than i did :)
i intended it as a bit of a play on words - substitutor ~ terminator. digester has an 'e' but 'o' is probably better grammar. again, i be happy to bow to consensus. views anyone?
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
