Re: Relevant properties

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-11 09:20:45

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> >> I know I came up with the term, but I never expected it to be in a
>> >> prominent place in the system's UI.
>> >
>> > Seems we need something in UI... maybe <represent-feature> or
>> > <track-feature>, or <show-feature-value> or <encode-feature-value>
>> > or <show-in-target-path>?
>>
>> I think <in-target-path> might be enough. It's still a little
>> strange though. The way this property works, as I understand it, is
>> that if you don't specify anything, all features are in-target-path.
>> As soon as you specify one feature as in-target-path, you get _only_
>> that feature in the target path. Is that right?
>
> That's right, because it's more convenient to specify features that
> you want, than features you don't want (which are unlimited).

I understand the convenience factor. The fact remains that the
feature operates differently from all others (or seems to), and that
makes it hard to name descriptively.

> It's possible to use 
> 
> <hide-features>yes <show-feature>a <show-feature>b 
>
> but it differs only by extra element. Don't think it improves anything.
>
> - Volodya
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com