On Apr 14, 2014, at 11:42, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, you can say that. I already said you can always formulate the terms to > mean the exact reverse. Always. And it again illustrates why trying to be > clear here actually buys you nothing, but it costs a lot. In the end, the > user just has to remember the two terms and which is which, and that needs > some mental image to keep that association. I think in this case this may be > strictly logically true, but I don't think it's useful. I think it’s pretty clear that we strongly disagree on whether it’s a good idea to use the same syntax (“=“) to express equality/similarity and relationships. We also disagree on whether typing 3-4 additional characters in addition to a copy/paste operation is worth it users in terms of the improvement in clarity. I believe how useful those 3-4 additional characters are in improving clarity strongly hinges on whether one uses “=“, “:”, or some other separator. Ultimately, you provide the most leadership for this project and get to decide. I do disagree with the conclusion you come to. Cheers, Colin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
