andre999 a écrit :
Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
Le 18/02/2012 01:28, andre999 a écrit :
Exactly. Let's document all virtual provides.
Once again 'virtual provide' makes no sense, just because there is no
non-virtual provides (and in plain english, no provides at all,
because that's a verb, not a noun). They are virtual *packages*, by
opposition to actual packages, for which you can find a file with
same name.
True ;)
Just using a common phrase.
(BTW, a verb can be used as a noun in English, although that is more
an exceptional usage.)
Since "provides" is the keyword used, it makes sense to me to use that
in the reference.
Better to say something like "defined provides" or "explicit provides" ?
Thinking about it, "virtual provides" does make sense, if viewed in the
context of providing a package, rather than a function.
Because although an explicitly defined "provides" indicates that the
package in question really does provide the functionality, it only
virtually provides the package that gives the functionality.
Of course in some cases, the function isn't associated with a real
package, but rather a virtual package, so that would be virtually
providing a virtual package.
Further, every package strictly provides itself, which can be seen as a
non-virtual provide.
Another 2 cents :)
--
André
