As you know, naming is always difficult. I want to get your input on a word used in the GUI...
The word is OPTIONS. It is used when you want to change the default attributes for a style. For example:
Note that in R2, we used the word WITH for a similar concept. I picked WITH because it was short and descriptive. I don't like long keywords for high frequency words.
Vote in comment section. Note that a word is required to indicate that the block contains options and not contents (the normal usage of a block when no keyword is provided.)
WITH is clearly the best word to go with here.|
1) is used in other GUI frameworks
2) 'with' can be more valuable elsewhere (rather like 'use' that way)
I prefer "with" or "options", but you should try writing the documentation either way and see what makes more sense. I think that you should consider that the block following the keyword is a block of options, so it would be the difference between: |
with [...some options...] and
options [...some options...]
Fortunately you don't have to restrict based on what is more valuable elsewhere. This is a dialect keyword, not a function, so you can use it here and elsewhere.
"has" is a good name too.
On the other hand, i assume that this block of redefined properties will be very frequent.
In the sense, you could use the default block following a style in the GUI dialect as the "options" block ?
Button "example" red [min-size: 50x50]
For well designed styles, this block should be rare. The most frequently used options would be specified inline, or better yet defaults.|
hmm, I saw that the default block is already used to define included styles (like with the "group" style) but could they not be mixed with local redefinition of properties.
like this ?
min-size: 100x100 ;(min size of group)
button "1" red
button "2" blue
Besides, it's relevant with the local attribution of names of sub styles.
btn1: button "1" red
btn2: button "2" blue
If i'm not wrong "btn1", "btn2" and "min-size" are local properties of the face "group"
no, btn1 and btn2 are not local properties of the group. They are its content. Property/option of the group might be its number of columns for e.g. But - we should keep this focused to selecting the correct word, not speculating about the concept ...
Pekr, content can be defined as a local property of his container. It's just a matter of definition.
I can admit it's the wrong place to discuss of the concept even if think the concept is more important that finding the wrong or the good name of a stuff.
The meaning of "with" is not instantly clear.
I'd stick to "options". Is 3 extra characters worth worrying about when it gains much more clarity?
I think 'with, or Steeve's suggestion of 'has, read better than 'options. 'Options is OK, but it breaks the natural cadence. 'Has seems more appropriate than in its function context in R2. I rarely use 'has today, because I don't think it conveys its meaning well, even though the rhythm is natural, and I can understand why Carl included it.|
"options" sounds like the contents of the block is conditional, so I don't think it's a good word in this case.
And I never liked "with", but that may have been because it wasn't originally in VID, or wasn't documented.
"use" is good though, but as you say, clashes with its standard use in REBOL.
So "using", perhaps? Otherwise, go with "with".
how about "more" ?|
I like 'with. I don't know why. REBOL uses different-2-other-languages wording (face, facet, engage, feel) on many places.
'use is imo wrong, english wise. It would has to be 'uses, or even if we would like to be SQL-like ('having), it would be 'using
'has is good option too. We know it as normal rebol function.
So my list of preference is: 'with, 'has, 'options
I try to read as:
style [with | has | options] [... some options ...]
Steeve. You probably forgot about one case - action block. So we have three occurances of block in our definition:
1) inline option, as with 'panel, 'group, etc.
2) block of options (our R2 'with parallel)
So, if you want to use block of options without the keyword, you have to use keyword for action block, e.g. 'do, or 'does. Or how would you distinguish the two? You can't tell by their position ...
I second Pekr's order: 'with, 'has, 'options|
I have used 'with in R2. In R3 it would have a slightly different meaning : you provide a block of options, not a block of code like in R2. So I'm a bit worried about that!
I like 'using. It reads well, but I'm not sure it sounds well for native speaker.
SO my "Tiercé" is
with using options
My preference is
"with" or "use"
create a panel with these options
create a panel using these options
There are more options. The word has to express having (default or local) ready-to-go -- already well choosen) display properties; so the metaphor is like garnments.
The theme suggest those words:
- bearing, wearing, dressing as (in french 'porter');
- bearing, using, having, playing as (revêtir);
- take, put on (mettre).
To bear properties, to wear display accessories, is naturally said.
Meaningness is more important than having to type 2-3 more letters. After all, 'long' is short.
We're looking for a short word that means to change the default attributes for a style. In descending order of length, I suggest:
My vote is for "with". I don't like "use" or "has" because they would cause a bit of confusion with the related functions of /core for new users.|
And what about "his" ? It's short and not confusing.|
In the same order: "its"|
If it didn't have to be a real word could use something like WOP (With Options)|
I prefer: options > with > using > use
How about one of: set , use , has , with , ~ , // , ||, ++|
i like has >> with >> options|
I like the word "instead" or "with".
another vote for "with"|
"adjust" the defaults|
It's not a "giant" deal either way with me but I happen to be an "options" person because I had to learn what "with" meant in the context used whereas "options" is much more descriptive and precise to me. For example, If I had to explain what "with" meant to someone, I would say "Well, it means to 'create a panel with these options." I can't imagine having to explain what the word 'options' meant. Of course we would expect that as one is a noun and the other a preposition.
Hum to think it deeply with is used mainly because at the really ground of any dilect concept you have the "Object" with is used in all rebol to customised ready made objects. Doing the difrérencie betwin the VID's objects and the regular REBOL object concept don't relly seems to me a path to understand what is the interrest of rebol way to deal with objects.
In other object based language the customisation of particular fields content of an object can't be made inline example:
Button: new gtk_Button();
in rebol you have:
btn: button with [ size: 100x50 color: 255.0.0 action: btn_action ]
I thin WITH word is the best because it's related deeply with the objects concept in REBOL.
You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.