Re: unhappy responses

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Bijan Parsia
<bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:28, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I completely agree about the need to let these be represented. The
>> question that Marijke raises isn't about that but about how we
>> document the feature.
>
> I didn't derive that from her email. I think Jim is right that we'll need
> more documentation, but I thought her point was the change the name (or make
> the feature functional). Neither of those seem ideal.

Changing the name would be what I consider along the lines of
documentation. Not that I'm passing judgement on the merit of doing
so. Just noting that I don't see a call for removing the ability to do
what you describe. While she did suggest making hasKey functional I
considered that an attempt to have the name align with what her view
of the semantics are, not as a statement that the functionality you
suggest isn't desirable.

In any case, I'll follow up and get back with what I find.


-Alan


>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>