Re: Joe-E 2.0 Release

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> David Wagner wrote:
>> 1. Joe-E programmers would normally put their Joe-E code into
>> separate packages that contain only Joe-E code.  They would add
>> the @verified annotation to those packages.
> 
> Just a nitpick: if I understand correctly, this is an assertion that
> the code is intended to be verifiable, not that it has been verified.
> 
> So, I think @org.joe_e.verifiable would a better name for the annotation.

I agree, this wording tripped me up at first too. "verifiable" or 
"verify", or some phrasing implying a future action would be better.

Sandro