Skip to content

Use consistent noun to refer to "nested options" (properties of an option) #247

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
jzaefferer opened this issue Feb 11, 2015 · 7 comments
Closed

Comments

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member

We currently use both "settings" and "properties" when talking about options. Since we also use "setting" as a verb, I prefer to avoid that when referring to properties of an option, like properties of the classes option.

Should be a simple search and replace (or not, as usual). Would like some input before making the change though. /cc @agcolom @arthurvr @kswedberg

@scottgonzalez
Copy link
Member

@agcolom @arthurvr @kswedberg Thoughts?

@arthurvr
Copy link
Member

I prefer 'settings' but that's just a personal opinion.

@agcolom
Copy link
Member

agcolom commented Feb 24, 2015

I agree we should be consistent with the wording. My preference goes to "properties". I'd like the opinion of a native speaker also. @kswedberg @scottgonzalez. I don't any any objections for settings if the majority votes for that.

@scottgonzalez
Copy link
Member

I prefer properties because that's what they are. They're properties of an object.

@agcolom
Copy link
Member

agcolom commented Feb 24, 2015

Same here, I always use properties when referring to the properties of an object.

@kswedberg
Copy link
Member

properties 👍

jzaefferer added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2015
Removes some ambiguity since we also "setting" as a verb.

Fixes #247
@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member Author

Properties it is! I've created a PR, please take a look: #251

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants