Re: depend take 2

[Christian Hopp]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Martin Pala wrote:

> Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
>
> >Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

(... 1 ...)

> >>=> check bar and its dependant foo that should be runned after bar

(... 2 ....)

> >>=> check foo and depend on bar to be running before foo
> >>
> >>
> >>Both designs are possible, it just about the "feeling". I thing second
> >>version is more usual/nature in real world, but it doesn't matter :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Laying it out like that I can see your point. It *does* look more
> >logical, maybe what was confusing me a bit was the name of the
> >statement, that is, "depend", in your case the keyword should probably
> >be "dependant" which makes it more clear. What do you say Rory?
> >
> >
> >
> Good sugestion - if we stay with present design, i'm +1 to change
> "depend" keyword to "dependant"

Or we call it "depends on"  where the ".*s" and the "on" are noise words?
Or we just make the ".*ant" as noise. Thus, you can simply write "depend"
when you know what you are doing.  Keywords shouldn't be too long.  They
should be short and meaningful!

Christian


-- 
Christian Hopp                                email: address@hidden
Institut für Elektrische Informationstechnik             fon: +49-5323-72-2113
TU Clausthal, Leibnizstr. 28, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerf.   fax: +49-5323-72-3197
                             pgpkey: https://www.iei.tu-clausthal.de/pgp-keys/