[Geany] autocomplete terminology confusion

[Enrico Tröger]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:34 -0400, "John Gabriele" <jmg3000 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10/22/07, Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:54:03 -0400, "John Gabriele"
> > <jmg3000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The actual behaviour is, of course, to expand a small piece of
> > > text into a larger piece -- regardless of whether or not it's
> > > code. So, really, neither "code snippets" nor "snippets" are
> > > names that fit actual behaviour. I just thought "snippets" would
> > > be simpler, and more general sounding.
> >
> > Why doesn't fit snippets at all?
> > I think it is good enough and I'm not really sure about your last
> > sentence. You also suggest snippets or you are against? To me it
> > sounds a bit contrary.
> >
> 
> What I mean is, "snippet" is a handy little word that is useful not
> because it has a terribly well-defined meaning, but because it's
> slang-ey enough that we can assign to it a specific meaning for Geany.
> I think it's a good fit for use with this Geany feature. It would work
> well, mostly because people are already familiar with seeing it in
> other editors, and have a preconceived idea of what it probably does.
> 
> So, when I'd suggested using plain "snippets" instead of "code
> snippets", you'd stated, "IMO it fits the actual behaviour more than
> auto completion.". I think this is where there was confusion. I was
> agreeing with you about using the word "snippets" -- I just thought it
> would be better without the word "code" in front of it. :)
Ok, so finally we both like "snippets" more than "code snippets" and
"auto completion" ;-).


Regards,
Enrico

-- 
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.key
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20071023/923208f1/attachment.pgp>