24 Sep
2011
24 Sep
'11
10:27 a.m.
Yes, only it should be FM3 instead of FM.
Doru
On 24 Sep 2011, at 10:15, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."
Hi,
I am happy that finally someone would like to have a dialog about these issues :).
The idea was to name it MSE because this was the name of the format. But, I also wanted
before to name it FM3.
Regarding the use of <package:>, the idea was that this is just an add-on to
another annotation. For example, if you have a <MSEClass:> then you can optionally
add a <package:> that is interpreted in the context of the defined
<MSEClass:>.
The problem with this approach is that they use common names that pollute the overall
pragma space (given that pragmas are global). So, I would prefix package: with
FM3Package:.
Actually, there are a couple of more pragmas used that should be renamed as well:
- <multivalued>
- <derived>
- <container>
Cheers,
Doru
Ok let us fix them all.
So what is your proposal?
I would do <FM everything> for the main entity
FMClass
FMPackage
FMProperty
and <derived....
Tell me what you think.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev