Re: [boost] Fwd: Re: [log] review part 1

Subject: Re: [boost] Fwd: Re: [log] review part 1
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 12:13:04

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Andrey Semashev
<andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On 03/15/2010 05:39 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>
>> AMDG
>>
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with other comments that I saw about Attribute being
>>>> a poor choice for what it does. I would prefer that the term "Attribute"
>>>> should be used for what you call an "Attribute Value," and that
>>>> there should be a different term, like "Attribute Extractor" for
>>>> what you call an "Attribute."
>>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding of the term "attribute" is that it's some kind of
>>> meta-information that defines the concrete values that will be attached
>>> to log records. I'm ready to agree that the word "attribute" doesn't
>>> bring my intention precisely, but the alternatives don't quite get
>>> closer. "Extractors" are reserved for another tool in the library.
>>>
>>
>> Now that I've read more of the documentation, I think I
>> see what you mean. How about "attribute generator"?
>>
>
> Uhm, that doesn't quite tick me either. Could be "attribute source", but
> the term "source" is already used. Perhaps, the "attribute" thing wasn't
> really a good choice. Maybe, it should have been as simple as "marker" and
> "mark". I don't know, I don't have good alternatives right now.
>
>
How about "attributor"?  This implies that it DOES something, not IS
something.  In particular, it implies that it's used for associating
attribute values with log records, and is also somewhat concise.

Zach