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

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


Quoting Ben Finney (2017-01-01 23:37:19)
> Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
> > 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?

at a time where I was also wondering whether it would make sense to have some
common terminology for all these things I wrote up this wiki page:


In the section "Specifying the object of a dependency relation" you can see
three answers for what you are asking that I have seen used in the wild.

Contributions to that page welcome. :)

cheers, josch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: