On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Allin Cottrell wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>
>> I haven't had time to make the change yet, but it now seems to me that
>> "sibling" is the wrong word, since siblinghood is inherently mutual
(also
>> transitive) and I don't have that in mind here. I'm now thinking of
"host"
>> (or perhaps "server"). If package A specifies B as "host"
(let's say) that
>> gives A access to B's private functions, but not vice versa.
>
> How about "donor"?
That's better than "sibling", but I kinda prefer "host". The
package in
question is not actually giving anything away, it's just allowing the guest
package (as we might say) into its private namespace.
I have this uneasy feeling that "host" may not be transparent enough, but
I can't think of an alternative.
-------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali (DiSES)
Università Politecnica delle Marche
(formerly known as Università di Ancona)
r.lucchetti(a)univpm.it
http://www2.econ.univpm.it/servizi/hpp/lucchetti
-------------------------------------------------------