On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Michael Sheets wrote:
entity.name.token.* for instance should be entity.name.type.token.*
Also, one minor philisophical issue here. It's not really clear here
that tokens should fall under entity.name.type.*, as they are not types,
but rather values that inhabit a type. Much like 20 (or more closely,
the symbol XX which represents the number 20) is not considered to be a
type, even though it is an inhabitant of the type number (or perhaps
numeral).
You could similarly argue that all functions should be placed under the
entity.name.type.* banner as they are all inhabitants of the type (a -> b)
for appropriate assignmonts to a and b... Similar issues exist with
classes and modules, which are not types either (though class definitions
do lead implicitly to a new type abbreviation, so I'm cool with that).
And type constructors in a language like Haskell are even more troubling.
Anyway, I'm wondering if entity.name.tag.* isn't more appropriate here,
though that kind of goes against my intuition of what a tag is too.
Does anyone who cares have any comments on this? In the meantime, I'll go
ahead and use type, as that fits in with what's been done before, though a
switch to tag might be more appropriate. Or perhaps the addition of an
entity.name.value.* or similar.
William D. Neumann
---
"There's just so many extra children, we could just feed the
children to these tigers. We don't need them, we're not doing
anything with them.
Tigers are noble and sleek; children are loud and messy."
-- Neko Case
Life is unfair. Kill yourself or get over it.
-- Black Box Recorder
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
