And if this is MSE why Fame has property tag with MSE... instead of FM?
Then I do not understand why this is MSEProperty and not MSEPackage: in that case. Why do we have package: and not MSEPackage: (or FMPackage: and FMProperty:
Stef
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
On 23 Sep 2011, at 22:10, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
And if this is MSE why Fame has property tag with MSE... instead of FM?
Then I do not understand why this is MSEProperty and not MSEPackage: in that case. Why do we have package: and not MSEPackage: (or FMPackage: and FMProperty:
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow."
On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
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
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:
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@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."
Ok I will check that.
Stef
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:
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@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba