[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:

> Oi you lot!


> I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word
> "depender" in place of "reverse dependency"?

I don't know a simple term in English that carries that meaning.

To me, “depender” feel like a neologism and does not make me confident
the reader would know what is meant. I vote −1 to that term.

The adjective “dependent” is IMO fine, so perhaps the noun phrase
“dependent package” is a good candidate. It's not the single word you're
looking for, but maybe it is unambiguous for the purpose?

 \         “I still have my Christmas Tree. I looked at it today. Sure |
  `\               enough, I couldn't see any forests.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: