Release-->Released vs. Get-->G???
I have a question that will ultimately be used for naming some technical operations in a computer program. I am going to use analogy to describe the situation rather than technical jargon that will make your eyes bleed.
I am a team leader and I have a ball. There are other team leaders who want to "Get" my ball but have to wait in line until I am finished with it. While I have this ball I play a game with my team. When I am done with the ball I "Release" it and announce that the ball is "Released". My team hears my announcement and goes to the locker room. The next team leader in line hears my announcement, grabs my ball, and announces the ball is "G???" so that his team will come out of the locker room and start playing. This ball process of "Get"-->"G???", play, "Release"-->"Released" continues until every team leader has had the ball.
So the question is what do I call the "G???" part? I have entertained the following:
"Get"-->"Got": Sounds horrible.
"Get"-->"Gotten": Sounds even worse.
"Get"-->"Acquired": Sounds great but the words are very different visually.
"Get"-->"Owned": Sounds ok but the words very different visually.
I feel like I am missing something here, so... um... help!
Hi Patty T,
Keeping the words in the same tense isn't an option because the past tense words are intended to reflect a state change of the ball that occured in the past. The ball can be in the "Released" state or can be in the "Acquired"/"Gotten"/"Owned"/not-sure-what-to-call-it state. The "Get" and "Release" parts of this scenario are actions (verbs) that can be performed:
Get(action) --> Got? (ball state)
Release(action) --> Released (ball state)
In the technology world, "Get" and "Release" are standard words to use and synonyms are often frowned upon without a strong case to use them. I believe I have a strong enough case to use "Acquired" but my preference would be to use a "G"-word of some kind; thus, eliminating the need for a case. What's different about my scenario vs. other "Get" and "Release" technical implementations is that I have state change announcements while the other's do not.
It's possible that there is simply no "G"-word that I can use to convey the same contextual meaning as "Acquired", but I am hopeful that you are someone else can swoop in and say:
"Use <xxx>, it is the best option and this is why..."
|link||edited Jul 01 '14 at 20:42 Jack New member|
After reading what you said and considering the options I believe this will be the optimal solution:
Once a "Get" succeeds then the ball is technically owned and the concept works a little better because both tense questions can be asked without changing the words involved:
* Is it owned?
* Was it owned?
I can probably make a good case for this. Just for your own knowledge, the "ball" concept I am using is really a system object called a "mutex". Multiple asynchronous operations in a program can stand in line to "Get" it but only one can be the owner of it at any given time. Once the owner is done with it, it will "Release" its ownership of it. The "play" concept involved really means that some asynchronous operation is accessing a shared resource (usually memory) exclusively so other operations cannot interfere with that resource while it's being utilized.
|link comment||answered Jul 02 '14 at 21:39 Jack New member|
Hero of the day
Person gave the most answers!