RE: [stellation-res] Proposal to rename 'getProperty' to 'getproperty',

["Jonathan Gossage" <jgossage@xxxxxxxx>]

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: stellation-res-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:stellation-res-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mark C.
> >Chu-Carroll
> >Sent: September 5, 2002 6:45 AM
> >To: stellation-res@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [stellation-res] Proposal to rename 'getProperty' to
> >'getproperty', 'SetProperty' to 'set property'
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 13:47, Dave Shields wrote:
> >> I propose to replace the current getProperty and setProperty
> >commands with 'get property'
> >> and 'set property', respectively:
> >>
> >> -- All command names would (once again) be words that are
> >transitive verbs
> >>
> >> -- No command would contain any upper-case characters
> >>
> >> -- This would allow for extending get and set in the future by
> >adding new subcommands,
> >> and not new top-level commands.
> >>
> >> If approved, I would put this in right away, as I would like
> >to stabilize the workspace API soon.
> >
> >
> >I'm not crazy about it... Actually, I think that I'd prefer to have the
> >commands be "get" and "set", rather than a subcommand. I think that
> >anything about an artifact that you get and set is a property of that
> >artifact.
> >
> >	-Mark

I think both Dave's and Mark's ideas are better than the current situation,
but I tend to agree with Mark's position that "get" and "set" naturally
carry the meaning of acting on properties.

Regards

Jonathan

Personal Email
jgossage@magma.a

Business Email
jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx