confused by MSE is it moose or mse? - Moose-dev - INF Mailman

List overview All Threads
Download

confused by MSE is it moose or mse?

Browser is broken in the image...

Issue 710 in moose-technology:...

Stéphane Ducasse

23 Sep 2011 23 Sep '11

10:10 p.m.

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

Reply

Show replies by date

Tudor Girba

24 Sep 24 Sep

9:57 a.m.

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(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow."

Reply

Stéphane Ducasse

10:15 a.m.

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

Reply

Tudor Girba

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:

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

-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."

Reply

Stéphane Ducasse

1:32 p.m.

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(a)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(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Reply

4838

days inactive

4839

days old

moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch

Manage subscription

4 comments

2 participants

tags (0)

participants (2)

Stéphane Ducasse
Tudor Girba