Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » PR, media coverage, articles and documentation » Terminology
Re: Terminology [message #641 is a reply to message #639] Mon, 23 January 2006 12:09 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
gprentice is currently offline  gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
Experienced Member

I didn't notice anyone having problems understanding packages except for me and Jan http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=138838 23

and I'm especially good at taking every opportunity to misunderstand something - though I still feel the "set main package" option on the file menu is non-intuitive - which is why I tried to emphasize the concept of "main package" in those docs I wrote because the meaning of "main package" is fundamental to U++ and is unheard of in any other IDE where a package usually corresponds to a project. In MS Visual studio, a "solution" is a container for projects.

However I do not think changing package to unit would be an improvement. In C++ Builder (and Delphi) a unit is a pair of source files (.cpp .h or just .pas) and if there is an associated form then there is a .dfm file as well - whereas in U++ a package is a group of source files with an associated package definition file that lists all the source files - i.e. not like a BCB unit at all.

If I had time I would try to find out what wxWidgets calls the groups of source files that build to their own lib.

Apart from "project", the only alternative names I can think of right now are "module" or "component" - neither of which seem like an improvement on package. Changing "package" to "project" would be more intuitive for newbies.

I agree "assembly" is a reasonable name. In the MS dot net world an assembly is "a logical DLL or EXE" - to quote a book I have.

As for "nest" - the only objection I have to that is that it conjures up images of nature and reproduction ... like when Tomas started going on about droppings and feathers Smile
The main place the term "nest" appears is in the docs I wrote - and that was mainly to have a handle to use to describe the include path mechanism - apart from that, you don't see the term "nest" anywhere except the assembly setup dialog and there it could be changed from "Package nests" to "Package root folders", "Package paths" or "Package group paths". I would have to think about how I could remove the term "nest" from those docs if you wanted to change to "package group folder". I have a suspicion I screwed up the use of "top level nest folder" in those articles a little - I was planning to fix that one of these days ...

That's my opinion as of this moment, but it could change at any time Smile

Graeme

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Packages & Assemblies doc
Next Topic: grammar corrections
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed May 15 14:47:27 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02740 seconds