bug#56799: (gnu services configuration) usage of *unspecified* is problematic

[Attila Lendvai]

> > would you be fine if we renamed MAYBE-VALUE-SET? to UNSET-VALUE?
>
>
> unset-value? sounds like an action; so I'd name it 'maybe-value-unset?';
> but as I wrote above I don't really see the benefit/like the idea.


it's always funny when two non-native speakers (?) argue about english... :) 
maybe we should invite one into the conversation?

with that in mind: UNSET-VALUE? certainly doesn't look like an action to me due 
to the question mark at the end. if we want to clearly disambiguate this, then 
we should insert 'is' somewhere, e.g. IS-UNSET-VALUE? which is a short version 
of IS-IT-THE-UNSET-VALUE?, i.e. it is not a shorthand for IS-THIS-VALUE-UNSET?, 
because only places can be in the state of not set.

does this clarify my perspective?

it's not crucial, though. i can work my way through the changes without 
renaming this, but it'll be public API, so it's better to have something 
intuitive and non-misleading published at the earliest possible iteration.

--
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than 
standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by 
posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large 
scale.”
        — Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)