References / Referenceables naming scheme

[Okulo]

Now that OpenCS is shaping up to be something very usable, I've been playing around a tad. It's powerful for sure, but something bothered me: the names 'references' and 'referenceables'. Going through the world menu, I keep doing double takes when I need either one of them. Aside from that, neither of them are very descriptive. 'Referenceable' is really not a noun but an adjective and generally an ugly word at that.

I asked around what other application developers thought would be good names for the 'referenceables' table. The conclusion of every one I spoke to was that both names are not as good as they could be. After all, the entries in the 'references' table do much more than merely referring to something; it also contains columns for positions, owners, etc.

So maybe we could come up with new names for these two tables that properly describe its content. Perhaps we could go for 'objects'/'instances'? What are your thoughts?

[Tinker]

I must admit initially I had a similar problem between the two, I thought at the time they might be placeholder names until the right one was decided on. As time has goner on I have got used to the current names though I still do not like them.

The suggestion of 'objects'/'instances' seems good to me, it does differentiate between the two tables nicely, maybe some users might not understand instances at the start but it does become obvious with use.

[Zini]

I thought at the time they might be placeholder names until the right one was decided on.

It kinda was.


Okulo and I have been discussing this topic via PM for a bit and I just want to mention here that I too like the proposed changes. Much clearer. And also gets rid of the annoying referenceables name that for some reason I never seem get spelled right at the first attempt.

[Zini]

It seems we have no further input on this topic. Let's interpret that as general agreement with the name change.

I will start to make the necessary changes now.