[Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
simon at schampijer.de
Fri May 7 03:07:44 EDT 2010
On 05/07/2010 05:08 AM, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> On 05/06/10 18:01, Paul Fox wrote:
>> heh. i was really kind of rooting for "impromptu", myself. it
>> sounds like a lot more fun than "ad hoc". "Come on over! We're
>> having an ad hoc party!", just doesn't have the same ring to it. :-)
>> i think ad hoc is really two words, and shouldn't be hyphenated.
>> i'm sure one of our fluent latin speakers can help here.
> Ah, Grammar! Summary: Today, "ad hoc" is definitely correct and
> "ad-hoc" depends on how much of a stickler is the grammarian you ask.
> The Latin phrase is indeed two words. Also, Latin grew up at a time
> when hyphens didn't exist either. Also, we're using "ad hoc" as an
> *English* adjective; both with and without hyphen are used; either way
> is, by the rules of English grammar, two words. For most adjectives in
> this situation we would use a hyphen: consider the ambiguity of
> "hot pink bunnies"
> do we mean "hot-pink bunnies, the brightly colored creatures that
> decorated the pages of Muse magazine instead of cats-vs.-dogs."
> ("hot-pink" applies to "bunnies")
> "hot, pink bunnies ran limply from the sweltering heat of the fire."
> ("hot" applies to bunnies, "pink" applies to bunnies, but "hot" does not
> apply to "pink" or vice versa)
> The only reason "ad hoc" can get away with not having a hyphen is
> because it's a well-known phrase that cannot be split up. (You can't
> have an "ad network" or a "hoc network" -- except if "ad" is short for
> "advertising" which is an entirely different word!) In fact, the
> without-hyphen version is rather more standard. I personally think it
> doesn't really matter. A book publisher would make us use "ad hoc", but
> we're not in that business of producing books, marketed to people who
> read lots of prose, that will of necessity sit on shelves unmodified for
> decades. Probably a few decades ago "ad-hoc" was less popular, and a
> century from now who knows where we'll be, but that's where we are now.
> however, I also rather prefer "impromptu" or "informal"! One site
> suggested "spontaneous" also. Unless we're trying to be consistent with
> established English usage, in which case we might want to choose "ad hoc
> networks" (assuming these networks really are the same concept as the
> well-known term "ad hoc networks", and not something that's much more
> specific/idiosyncratic -- judging by  etc, I think it's pretty close
> to that concept)
>  http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-December/026831.html
Thanks Isaac, for the detailed explanation :) I read it as if 'ad hoc'
would be a good choice.
I actually would go for 'ad hoc network' rather then 'informal network'
as we have named the mesh one 'mesh network'. Using here the rather
technical term too, would be best in terms of consistency. If someone
feels strong the other way, please say so now, as I want to settle on it.
Same for the icons, I would go for the maya numerals, and use the bg
color as an indicator if a network is 'active' or not, if there is more
than 1 person already listening on it. Btw, due to the nature of adhoc
networks they don't disappear right after you disconnect from them (no
listener left), this takes a while, means: if I connect on channel 1,
and then connect on channel 6 for others channel 1 will appear to be
still 'active' for a while.
Upstream: How does feel upstream about changing the way we handle ad hoc
networks to the model proposed here? (three icons in the neighborhood
view - one per channel, remove the option from the network frame
device). Tomeu, you as the submitter of the ad hoc feature, what do you
think? Attached is another screenshot to visualize it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 34547 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20100507/7f8945bc/attachment-0001.png
More information about the Sugar-devel