Quoting Axel Hecht (2014-07-24 18:59:55) > So, I'm on a clear "yes" for the general idea here.
\o/ > I wonder if we can escape by a leading '.' ? 'Cause that can't be > part of a legal entity anyway? > > ..caller.foo > ..global.bar (I talked to Pike on IRC and he said he had intended to write a single leading dot: .caller.foo and .global.bar). Any prefix is a sigil that might be confusing and hard to search for. Although I'll admit that a leading dot is probably the best available solution if we decide we absolutely require a sigil. > Which could also be my suggestions for names. Not opinions, just > throwing those out there.I'd like to not use the word global if possible Re. names I'd like to not use the word global if possible. I think it's confusing because we also say that some entities and attributes can be local, and that is not an opposite to a global. Sometimes, for the sake of explanation, I might say that ctxdata is global, i.e. not tied to one entity. Arguably, I should be saying that it's context-wide instead, but that requires to first introduce the context. This is why I was thinking more along the lines of system or platform. OTOH, caller (for ctxdata) suggests that it's just the caller's data, while, to my point above, it's context-wide ctxdata :) -stas -- @stas _______________________________________________ tools-l10n mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/tools-l10n
