--- Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Damian Conway wrote: > > Err....no. That's rather the whole point of C<but> properties [*]. > > > [*] People, we just *have* to find better names for these things! > > I'd suggest we henceforth call them "value" properties (for > C<but>) > > and "referent" properties (for C<is>). > > Over on [EMAIL PROTECTED] there seemed to be confusion about > attributes > and properties, given that some languages use one where we use the > other. > I had a dig in a thesaurus, I suggested that "chattels" and "virtues" > were interesting words that unambiguously describe respectively extra > data > you've attached to a thing, and an extra qualities you've given it. > But that's still only one (controversial) word for properties, and we > need two. > And I don't really like "chattels", whereas"virtues" sits nicely with > "bless". >
Obviously, values are pure and therefrom spring "virtues," while objects are but vile clay -- fallible constructs of a sinful man, pathetically trying to recreate an envisioned ideal. Ergo, they have naught but "vices." Can I get an "Amen," brothers and sisters? =Austin
