Semantics Question

[nixnerd]

Sorry @traq just a bit of hazing since you’re new to the 4+ post club! :)

[Senff]

“Observer” sounds fine to me. I see your point that you want to clarify that it is ABLE to observe, and not observing RIGHT NOW, but….

Does a writer always write? Or is it someone who CAN write and often does.
I’m a programmer. Does that mean I’m currently programming? No, but I can, and I often do.

If you look at the title “observer” as a role or job, as opposed to an actual activity, it’s fine I’d say.

[nixnerd]

I think he needs to distinguish between the two for whatever reason.

[__]

Sorry traq just a bit of hazing since you’re new to the 4+ post club!

dammit… dammit, dammit…
gorgina… gorgina, gorgina…

dammit

Does a writer always write? Or is it someone who CAN write and often does.

I’ve been thinking of it from the perspective of someone pointing out particular people in a crowd. In that situation, it wouldn’t be helpful to describe someone as “the writer” unless they were actually writing.

But you’re right, of course. I’ll admit that part of this is that I wanted an “-able” word, not just for specificity, but also for naming consistency.

I had actually “avoided” this problem earlier, by combining the two roles into one trait (so that all observers could also be observed, depending on which interface(s) they implemented). This was convenient in that many of my implementing classes worked that way anyway (this is a great way for implementing event-driven structures in PHP; in fact, objects can even observe themselves), but for clarity and concision I think it needs to be split into separate traits.

I pointed my sister (linguist) at this question, and she couldn’t think of any word more appropriate than “observerable” either. Oh well. Thanks, guys!

[__]

I think he needs to distinguish between the two for whatever reason.

Yeah. They’re a complimentary pair. The GoF name the participating objects “observer” and “subject”, but I want to distinguish these as traits (i.e., they are enabling components, but not the observer/subject objects themselves).

I’ll probably stick with observable / observerable for now.

[nixnerd]

Sounds reasonable.

[__]

I liked *Nix better.

[nixnerd]

Hmm… It didn’t really feel like a handle to me.

[__]

up to you.

[Anonymous]

How about Monitor, Scope, or Inspector? These works whether it is a physical object/device observing the observable or a person, or persons. If just for a person how about “Observant” or “The Observant.”

[__]

Thanks Michael. For clarification, I was looking for a word that defined a capability, but not necessarily an active/assigned role or action. A word that means it can be, but does not specify whether or not it is.

For now, I’m going to stick with “observable” and “observerable”… even though I don’t really like the latter term for various reasons, I think it’s the best fit for my situation.

[nixnerd]

For now, I’m going to stick with “observable” and “observerable”… even though I don’t really like the latter term for various reasons, I think it’s the best fit for my situation.

Sometimes you gotta hack the English language.

[Author]

Posts