Re: Creation (originally - Re: Is Smart Eiffel ready for large-... )

Peter Gummer wrote:

> On 13/04/2005, at 5:12 PM, Frank Salter wrote:
>
>> It needs to be different. Consider
>> creation  {}  make_1, make_2, make_3;   --  makes sense;  presents a 
>> list of procedures to be activated later
>> compared to the ETL3 way
>> create  {}  make_1, make_2, make_3;   --  Clearly the imperative can 
>> not be applicable here;  Should it create all three?
>
>
> A plausible argument, but I don't find it convincing. It's not clear 
> to me that the imperative is inapplicable. It's instructing the class 
> to create with these three routines. Sure, creation will occur at some 
> later time and place, but that's not specified here. What's specified 
> here is how to create.
>
> I much prefer the consistency of the imperative 'create'. If we could 
> find a different one-word way of saying, "allow creation with", then I 
> would prefer that. But I can't think of any such verb.

May be "creators" could be an option.

-- 
Philippe Ribet



                         The README file said
              "Requires Windows 95, NT 4.0, or better."
                    So... I installed it on Linux!