[uf-discuss] Unclear status of 'include-pattern'

[Andy Mabbett]

In message
<21e523c20610191155k6e901f81o3bc4ba24beb12296 at mail.gmail.com>, David
Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> writes

>The initial design-patterns ... and I know because I wrote them ...
>were distillations of existing practices. Include breaks this pattern
>only slightly, but was a reasonable isolation of a unit of work from
>hResume (I believe)

Thank you, David, but I'm not clear what your point is here, in relation
to the post you quote. Can you elaborate, please?

I asked (my post has not propagated back here):

>> How can a DP not be specified?

It's clear from:

        LePUS (LanguagE for Patterns' Uniform Specification) is a formal
        specification language based on a theory of object-oriented
        design in mathematical logic. LePUS was used successfully to
        specify design patterns, class libraries and object-oriented
        frameworks.

        <http://www.eden-study.org/lepus/>

that DPs do have specifications. It therefore follows, surely, that DPs
must first be capable of being both proposed specifications
("proposals") and draft specifications ("drafts").

Rather than debating such (dictionary-sense) semantics, wouldn't it be
better if someone with the relevant access, knowledge and editorial
ownership made it clear just what the situation is, for those DPs listed
on the main page ?
-- 
Andy Mabbett
                Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>

                Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>