[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference vaxuum::document_ft

Title:	DOCUMENT T1.0
Notice:	New notesfile (DOCUMENT.NOTE) now available (see note 897)
Moderator:	CLOSET::ADLER

Created:	Mon Feb 09 1987
Last Modified:	Thu Oct 31 1991
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	897
Total number of notes:	4397

273.0. "<INCLUDES_FILE> meaning isn't intuitive" by COOKIE::JOHNSTON () Fri Apr 17 1987 14:36

I taught a DOCUMENT class this week to a group of CSC trainers.  One
new_user comment that I thought was worth posting was that 
<INCLUDES_FILE> is not a very descriptive tag, considering its purpose, 
which is to define a logical name for a subelement file in a profile.

I readily agreed with this observation since I also had a problem with 
it when I first started using it.

How about renaming it <LOGICAL_FILE> or something else?

I can understand why you wouldn't want to get into renaming tags yet 
again, but I think this deserves serious consideration based on the fact 
that the problem of the tag not being intuitive comes up again and 
again.

Do others have any thoughts on this?


Rose

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
273.1	I agree	DSSDEV::EPPES	Dignity, always dignity	`Fri Apr 17 1987 17:30`	5
	I agree that <INCLUDES_FILE> is not an intuitive tag name. What about a name like <DEFINE_INCLUDED_FILE>? Would this cause confusion with defining symbols? How about something like <INCLUDED_FILE_NAME>? -- Nina
273.2	Agree too. <DEFINE_FILE_SYMBOL> ?	PRSIS4::BURESI	Marc BURESI, @EVO, DTN 858-5395	`Mon Apr 20 1987 13:38`	0
273.3	<DEFINE_LOGICAL_NAME_FOR_INCLUDED_FILE>? (-:	CLOSET::ADLER		`Mon Apr 20 1987 19:57`	1

273.4	Well, meaning of .-1 is now more intuitive ;^) !	PRSIS4::BURESI	Marc BURESI, @EVO, DTN 858-5395	`Tue Apr 21 1987 04:33`	0
273.5	Close, but no cigar...	COOKIE::JOHNSTON		`Tue Apr 21 1987 15:30`	12
	Actually, .3 says it all! I like it, cuz even I can understand it now. But I hate typing all that in. As usual, I want it all. How about <DEFINE_LOGICAL_FILENAME> or <DEFINE_LOGICAL_FILESPEC>? I'd like to get away from anything that has "symbol" or "include" in it, because that's where things start getting confusing (what's a symbol? what's a logical?). Rose
273.6	Keeping one's sense of humor.	VAXUUM::KOHLBRENNER		`Tue Apr 21 1987 15:44`	2
	I think others would like just <D>, 'cause it would cut down on the typing... :-)
273.7	Eye nevear mayk tiping eroarz!	CLOSET::KAIKOW		`Wed Apr 22 1987 15:03`	5
	re: 273.6 > -< Keeping one's sense of humor. >- Anything more than the file spec might be considered extraneous typing by some!
273.8	Another Possibility	CLOSET::ETZEL	Mike	`Wed Apr 22 1987 16:48`	2
	How about <uses_logical_name>(...\...)
273.9	Yes, yes, yes!	COOKIE::JOHNSTON		`Fri Apr 24 1987 12:55`	11
	Well, gee, I like <uses_logical_name>...I like most of 'em, except for that really long one in a previous note. I even like <d> (also in a previous note)...even if someone was poking fun at this incredible obsession I have about saving keystrokes! (-\| <--- did I type that right? Cheerily, Rose
273.10	I like it too	TLE::SAVAGE	Neil, @Spit Brook	`Fri Apr 24 1987 13:51`	3
	Another vote for <USES_LOGICAL_NAME> At least 'uses' and 'name' are short words.