| Type | Wish | Status | complete | Date | 18-Feb-2013 01:14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version | r3 master | Category | Documentation | Submitted by | Ladislav |
| Platform | All | Severity | minor | Priority | normal |
| Summary | The name of the #[...] syntax |
|---|---|
| Description |
In the http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/REBOL_Programming/mold I listed the reasons why I found the "construction syntax" or "construction" for short more appropriate than any of "constructor" or "serialized syntax" notions. The reasons are: • constructor (MAKE or something) is actually the part missing in constructions • the "serialized syntax" is not appropriate either since it is just a redundant and pleonastic equivalent of "syntax" This adjustment seems to be supported by BrianH and Hostile Fork. Also, it would require to adjust the error message in the example, replacing the "invalid constructor" text by "invalid construction spec" and correct the MOLD/ALL help string. |
| Example code |
>> load "#[...]" ** Syntax error: invalid constructor: [...] |
| Assigned to | n/a | Fixed in | - | Last Update | 18-Aug-2013 13:56 |
|---|
| Comments | |
|---|---|
|
(0003454)
Ladislav 18-Feb-2013 10:23 |
Documented in the http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/REBOL_Programming/mold artile.
Pull request created. |
|
(0003455)
BrianH 18-Feb-2013 10:37 |
The problem with this is that as a noun referring to a thing rather than an action, the word "construction" generally refers to something which has been constructed, not the spec by which something would be constructed. So "invalid construction" could imply that something was constructed, but was invalid in some other way after its construction (the action in this case).
Maybe "construction failed" would be a better way to phrase the error message, since it would less ambiguously refer to the action which failed. Maybe "invalid construction spec", since that is actually what had the error. For the docs, maybe something like "construction spec" would be better than "construction", since it would be too much of a bad pun to call it a blueprint. It is not a "construction", because that is either the result (the value) or the process (making the value) but not the specifications that the (internal) datatype constructor follows when constructing the value. I suppose that "construction syntax" could be used when you really need to emphasize that it has a syntax, because it doesn't make sense: Neither the act of constructing nor the in-memory constructed value have anything like syntax at all. However, it makes just enough of a lack of sense for people to not get distracted from the fact that this is just jargon, and isn't supposed to be really descriptive. |
|
(0003456)
Ladislav 18-Feb-2013 12:41 |
Another alternative might be to write "syntax error: invalid construction syntax" then, does that look better? (although it is redundant in my opinion, since the word syntax is present twice in there). Moreover, it is and remains just a syntax, since it is marked as invalid. It remains "serialized" as well, since "serialized" and "syntax" are the same words coming from different languages; not becoming a "value in memory".
I do not think "construction failed" is any better than that, since it would suggest there is some bug preventing the construction to work which is not true. The syntax was classified as invalid, thus no attempt was made to really construct the value. Or, if you like it more, "syntax error: invalid construction spec" is shorter and works well for me not containing the same word twice. Adjusting the pull request and the above doc article accordingly. |
| Date | User | Field | Action | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18-Aug-2013 13:56 | Ladislav | Status | Modified | pending => complete |
| 19-Feb-2013 10:46 | Ladislav | Description | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 15:30 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 14:01 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 13:59 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 13:58 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 13:53 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 13:53 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 12:43 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 12:41 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003456 | Added | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 10:41 | BrianH | Comment : 0003455 | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 10:37 | BrianH | Comment : 0003455 | Added | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 10:23 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003454 | Added | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 10:22 | Ladislav | Status | Modified | submitted => pending |
| 18-Feb-2013 10:22 | Ladislav | Code | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 10:22 | Ladislav | Description | Modified | - |
| 18-Feb-2013 01:14 | Ladislav | Ticket | Added | - |