On 2016-08-19 08:34, monkleyon--- via ghc-devs wrote: >> Honestly, I don't care particularly much which exact word it becomes >> just as long at isn't some 'cute' or obscurse[1] word. >> >> 'magic' belongs in the 'cute' category, I think and 'bespoke' belongs in >> the latter. > I'm native German. I never was in any English-speaking country in my > life. Almost all my English media is from the USA. I'm not a tailor. Yet > "bespoke" was familiar and instantly tells me what's important. > So I may just be one point on the map, but I am not sure your argument > that it is "obscure" is valid, sorry. > > That being said, let me add a package of "awwww"s for all the times an > English native complains that he has to learn a new word to program. > Take a portion and pass it along, would you? ;) > > Apropos learning words: while searching for information if "bespoke" is > really obscure (I found none in either direction) I stumbled upon some > (I think) not-yet-mentioned possible options >
I said it was *needlessly* obscure. There's absolutely no reason to choose such a word in this case. > * custom(i[zs]ed)? This seems to convey the exact opposite when used in the programming domain. When I 'customize' something or specify a 'custom' $something, I expect that I, the programmer, am going to provide the logic/behavior/whatever. > * tailored Just as 'bad' as bespoke -- and still has a sort of feeling of 'customized'. Bespoke at least has the very strong connotation of "getting someone else to do it for you" whereas tailored doesn't *quite* have that. (All, IMO, of course.) Regards, _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
