Joshua Gleitze

@robstoll: I’d also like to change the wording from ‘feature assertion’ to ‘feature extractor’ because they don’t really assert (or expect) anything, they only change the subject. This would also...

> I am not sure where you want to change the wording. In the readme? the file name in the API? I am mainly concerned about how we communicate, so...

> So I am in favour of renaming featureAssertions.kt in the APIs to featureExtractors.kt and we can also name it that way in the README. > So I am in...

Fair enough.

@robstoll how will we proceed here? My current understanding is that you approve the change in principle, but don’t want it to affect the code too much, which leaves us...

Okay, I understand from what you write that you don’t insist on the term ‘Assertion’, but rather want to differentiate between the logic object and the general term ‘expectation’. I’ll...

I’ll answer your comment above at a later point because I want to give it careful consideration. Regarding your latest comment: I don’t think that anybody will have trouble understanding...

Sorry for the long silence. --- > I think we need expectation function for the distinction. But I don't see a problem with using expectation function when we only talk...

> Do you have a strong opinion against `Record`? Unfortunately, yes. Mainly because I do not agree with the statement > Preferably a term which also accounts for the reporting...

I love discussions about naming. When people are willing to talk it through (like you are), these discussions can reveal a lot about how people think about the software and...