Re: Define/change the range of "supportedProperties" (ISSUE-37)

>> Being able to name something is crucial to have clarity.
>> I doesn't have to be "attribute"; anything that is distinct from
>> "property"
>> (i.e., does not have "property" in its name) is fine with me.
> 
> Fully agree.. the problem is we haven't been able to come up with something
> better yet.. something everyone can live with.

Our options are limited.
We will have to disappoint somebody in the end.

My dictionary gives the following options:

> property, quality, attribute, characteristic, feature, power, trait, mark, hallmark.

so I'm afraid it will have to be one of those if we want to avoid that

> A class can have a supportedProperty that is a SupportedProperty
> but not a Real property, but it has a property property that points to
> the Real property.


I've stated my preference before so I won't unnecessarily repeat myself.
While "attribute" might not be the best word _absolutely_ speaking,
I still think it is the optimum under the constraints we have:
"property" is already taken so we cannot use it without adding confusion.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 19:54:37 UTC