Grobian posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:39:38 +0100:
> I assume you meant to replace 'tuple' with 'segment'. First of all, I > might be biased, as for me everything is a binary association table. > However, I don't think a segment is the same in this case. 'part' would > be better, perhaps. In the end I think GLEPs are targetted at > programmers: those of Gentoo, as such it is not targetted at a broad > (and generic) audience at all. I prefer to stick with 'tuples' for now. Yes, I did. I ended up looking it up. I found two things. One, "Component", as in 1-component, 2-component, and 4-component, appeared to be in agreement with both the single definition at FOLDOC and the dual comp-sci definitions at Wikipedia, as both sources used it, so if one were to go that way, "component" would seem technically acceptable (more so than my original choice, segment). However, I also noted that the Wikipedia entry said "any positive number" and legitimized the "N-tuple" usage as well, so yes, it /was/ "just me", in this case, as 1-tuple would appear to be narrowly within the definition, at least on Wikipedia, for what it's worth. I'd personally still argue for "component" as that makes the GLEP more accessible to ordinary users, but you are correct in the primary targeting and apparently at least narrowly so in definition, and it's not my effort, so I get overruled. <g> No further reservations, at this point, and due to the backward compatibility, this GLEP would seem much more workable than the "4-tuple" GLEP, so good idea! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
