From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Robert Horn <rjhorn@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Extending org-contacts with properties: naming properties
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 06:43:24 -0400
Message-ID: <m3r4e5rdbn.fsf@quad.robs.office>
References: <2013-08-05T11-48-35@devnull.Karl-Voit.at>
	<CAJcAo8shZ=PBCc+GbkhN9HdsgK6bvCi=U+vwFYjL5V_v-qLKKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87wqnz7haf.fsf@gmail.com>
	<2013-08-07T09-52-51@devnull.Karl-Voit.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54624)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rjhorn@alum.mit.edu>) id 1V71Bx-00037P-O0
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 06:42:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rjhorn@alum.mit.edu>) id 1V71Bp-0006PG-9w
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 06:42:09 -0400
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com ([166.84.1.89]:46451)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rjhorn@alum.mit.edu>) id 1V71Bp-0006Or-6H
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 06:42:01 -0400
In-reply-to: <2013-08-07T09-52-51@devnull.Karl-Voit.at>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: news1142@Karl-Voit.at
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org


Karl Voit writes:

> * David Rogers <davidandrewrogers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that this kind of simple thing looks like a better
>> idea. However, it would also be nice to be able to call it some name
>> where a person who encounters the software capability but doesn't yet
>> know what it's for will understand what it's for just from reading the
>> name. 
>
> This is my goal, yes.
>
>> "Given" is simple and sounds clear, but it doesn't say who did the
>> giving so the clarity is over-rated. "CustomerInfoIGaveThem" is a bit
>> long. :) (and TheirRecordOfMe is hardly any better.) :)
>

My first reaction was to use a short sentence like "itoldthem".  I can't
think of any single english word that doesn't also need a subject to
describe which direction the transfer went.

R Horn