On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Ron Teitelbaum <ron at usmedrec.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:
> squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] *On Behalf Of *Eliot
> Miranda
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
> wrote:
>
> On 05.02.2016, at 15:12, marcel.taeumel <Marcel.Taeumel at hpi.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... I think we are also "resuming" after a snapshot.
>
> That’s what Chris said, yes.
>
> > I find "(not) snapshotting" or "restarting" better somehow…
>
> That’s why I suggested “starting”.
>
>
>
> How about adding some whimsey and using "startingAfresh"?  I'm seriously
> suggesting this because (at least for me) this is really evocative of
> launching a snapshot.
>
>
>
> *[Ron Teitelbaum] how about just say what it is.  #startingAfterSave
> #startingAfterQuit*
>

Because that's ambiguous.  startingAfterSave could mean "we've just written
a snapshot, haven't quit, and are restarting".  startingAfterQuit is
ambiguous.  Could it mean "we're starting a snapshot that was saved and
quitted", and hence be trying to distinguish between "we're starting a
snapshot that was saved and quitted" and "we're starting a snapshot that
was saved but not quitted"?  That's the problem here.  For the OCD amongst
us we can see lots of potential nonsensical meanings and it all gets really
confusing and we end up having to browse the sender of startUp: to really
understand what's going on.  So (at least for me) startingAfresh is /much/
better than resuming, startingAfterSave, startingAfterQuit etc.  starting
is pretty good, but startingAfresh is better.  startingAfterSave sucks ;-).



>
>
> _,,,^..^,,,_
>
> best, Eliot
>
>
>
>


-- 
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20160205/fcfbad81/attachment.htm