Archive: SubSection new name
SubSection new name
The name SubSection does not exactly fit its purpose as stated in this feature request. But everytime I want to change it I fail to decide of the best name. So here I am, asking you what is the best name for it?
If you think there is a better name than the options in the poll tell me and I will add it.
I think the name is fine as it is, because SubSection denotes that the following Sections will be SubSections until the SubSection ends. But, if a change is a must, I would have to go with ParentSection.
-Scott
Will then it be this way:
SuperSection/something
+Section
+SubSection
???
SubSection is a bad name because the new section opened is not really a sub section, it's a parent of all the following sections.
Rivan, I want it to stay like this:
<NewName>
Section
...
SectionEnd
<NewName>End
I only want a new, better name.
OK, I thought that we will have this way:
<NewName>
Section
...
SubSection
...
SubSectionEnd
...
SectionEnd
<NewName>End
What do you think?
Well, currently SubSection is just a dummy section, so using Section instead which can have content in it will be a bit problematic. But I will add it to the poll.
I was actually thinking about having all three, but kind of swapping Section and SubSection isn't bad ide at all.
How about just having nested Section and SectionEnd. Saves having to think of a new name :).
Section
Section
...
SectionEnd
Section
...
SectionEnd
SectionEnd
Although might be slightly confusing as only the innermost Sections can contain instructions (?).
Alternatively, Group/GroupEnd or SectionGroup/SectionGroupEnd?
I think section inside a section will too confusing, although SubSection inside a SubSection is possible :weird:
How about if I just make it so SubSections will be able to contain code and then the better looking Section...Section...SectionEnd...Section...SectionEnd...SectionEnd will be able to be implemented? Added this one to the poll too.
How about SectionHeader and then Section for the subsections.
No One Minds a Little Duplicity, Right?
For the sake, here's my comment on the matter from the afore-mentioned SourceForge Tracker system, [ 624789 ] Change SubSection to SuperSection:
Date: 2003-03-31 21:29I say simplify the language, simplify the documentation, simplify life. :)
Sender: traviscarden
Logged In: YES
user_id=672507
I wonder... would it be such a bad thing to do away with the
differentiation altogether and just imply a section's level by
context? Like an unordered list, for you HTML coders: what
level is it? Well, who knows according the title of the
element. Top level or ten levels down it's just <ul>.
But that's actually kind of nice when you decide to move
something, because you don't have to recode everything to do
it--just cut-n'-paste. My vote goes to getting rid of
SubSection altogether:
Section "Title 1"
Section "Title 1: Part 1"
Section "Title 1: Part 1a"
...
SectionEnd
....
SectionEnd
Section "Title 1: Part 2"
...
SectionEnd
SectionEnd
I've voted for option 5. Ime, the best were as simple as:
A Section:
- has a title
- can contain code
- can contain Sections
This would simplify migration a lot:
A SubSection
- is deprecated and therefore
- issues warnings but
- works like a section nonetheless
Robert Kehl
Uups.. I've voted for option 6, it wasn't option 5. Sorry.
I voted for Section-in-Section because although it might seems confusing at first, we are all used to folders inside folders.
I got this clear with traviscarden example . It's not confussing. :D
What's confussing is a subsection inside a subsection but then, a section inside.
We are all Sections or Subsections!
Poll closed. Section in section it is because it makes the most sense and can be done so backwards compatibility will not be broken.