Unclear strategy about library names and imports

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Highest
    • Clinical Quality Language (FHIR)
    • 1.4 [deprecated]
    • Clinical Decision Support
    • Authors Guide
    • 1.3. Libraries
    • Hide

      Add a note to the discussion to indicate why we're using "called" here.

      The keyword "called" was chosen to avoid confusion with the keyword "as", which is used for type-casting. We also don't use "as" for aliasing like many SQL dialects do, for the same reason.

      We mean "called" here in the sense that the library is "called a name" within this context, not that we intend to "call it by this name".

      Show
      Add a note to the discussion to indicate why we're using "called" here. The keyword "called" was chosen to avoid confusion with the keyword "as", which is used for type-casting. We also don't use "as" for aliasing like many SQL dialects do, for the same reason. We mean "called" here in the sense that the library is "called a name" within this context, not that we intend to "call it by this name".
    • Chris Moesel/Ivan Zapreev: 12-0-0
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive

      I would say it is more common to use "as" in case of aliasing the libraty names rather than "called".

      If I understand it correctly, the actual name of the library can clearlly be different than that specified in the import statement, right? If yes then here we can not say that the library is called one way or another. It is rather that we assign it with our own name here.

      Existing Wording:

      include CMS153_Common version '2' called Common

      Proposed Wording:

      include CMS153_Common version '2' as Common

            Assignee:
            zoedalley
            Reporter:
            ivan_zapreev
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: