Lets avoid the SHA-1 term (was [doc] User Manual Suggestion)

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2009, 23:38 UTC
Message-ID: <94a0d4530904261638o6cbda368p4f3aa641505a6768@mail.gmail.com>

2009/4/27 Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On 2009.04.24 20:48:57 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
>>
>>>> What's wrong with just calling the object name "object name"?
>>>
>>> What's wrong with calling the object address "object address"?
>>
>> Neither captures the connection to the object's contents.  I think
>> "value ID" would be closer, but it's probably too horrible.
>
> I think I asked this in another mail, but I'm quite tired, so just to
> make sure: What do you mean by "value"? I might be weird (I'm not a
> native speaker, so I probably make funny and wrong connotations from
> time to time), but while I can accept "content" to include the type and
> size of the object, the term "value" makes me want to exclude those
> pieces of meta data. So "value" somehow feels wrong to me, as the hash
> covers those two fields.

Just to summarize.

Do you agree that SHA-1 is not the proper term to choose?

Do you agree that either 'id' or 'hash' would work fine?

Personally I think there's an advantage of choosing 'hash'; if we pick 'id' then the user might think that he can change the contents of the object while keeping the same id, if we pick 'hash' then it's obvious the 'id' is tied to the content and why.

-- 
Felipe Contreras