Chris Waters wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:57:16PM -0400, Daniel B. wrote:
>
> > Since the other package is not dependent on perl, then by your own
> > dictionary's definition, the other package is not a dependency of
> > perl. (Any divergence between us yet?)
>
> This is your point of error. The dependency belongs to perl, that's
> why it's a dependency OF perl's.
Which sense of dependency do you meant, 1) a relationship of dependence,
or 2) a thing involved in such a relationship?
(Recall the dictionary definition:
dependency ...:
1. Dependence.
2. Something dependent or subordinate.
...
)
A "dependency of perl's" in sense 1 is a relationship of dependence
in which perl is involved (e.g., "One dependency of perl is that it
requires libc"). We probably don't disagree here.
A "dependency of perl's" in sense 2 is "something that is dependent"
(on something else) and that belongs to perl in some sense. So which
something is it?:
1. Perl depends on its prerequisites, so perl is dependent, but perl
isn't a dependency of itself.
2. A package that perl depends on does not depend on perl, so it is
not dependent and it is not subordinate, so (per the dictionary)
it is not a dependency of perl.
3. A package that depends on perl does depend on perl (duh!), so it
is dependent, so (per the dictionary) it is a dependency of perl.
> If the other package had the
> dependency, then it would be a dependency ON perl, not "of".
No. A "dependency on perl" is not a package involved in a dependence
relationship. (The package _has_ a dependency on perl but it _is_ not
a dependency on perl.)
Per sense 1 above, a "dependency on perl" is a "dependence on perl."
Per this:
dependence
...
2.a.Subordination to someone or something
needed or greatly desired.
b. ...reliance.
a "dependence on perl" is a "reliance on perl."
So, clearly, a "dependency ON perl" cannot refer to a package. It
refers to some package's dependence on perl.
> I am dependent on coffee, therefore coffee is a dependency of mine.
Not that I can swear that I've never heard the usage you claim, but do
you have a definition from a (professional) dictionary that documents
that usage?
(That one can't say, "Guam is dependent on the U.S., therefore the U.S.
is a dependency of Guam's" (or "of Guam").)
I think your example is really saying "a dependence or reliance on
coffee is a dependency of mine."
However, if it really is valid for "dependency of X" to mean something
on which X depends (coffee as a dependency of yours) and to mean
something that depends on X (Guam as a dependency of the U.S.), then
obviously "dependency" (in sense 2) should not be used to refer to
_either_ depending packages or depended-on packages.
Daniel
--
Daniel Barclay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
