Ruth A. Kramer wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> 
>>Module seems more natural to me, but maybe "Representable" would be a
>>better name.
> 
> 
> I'm just a newbie/lurker, but I wonder why you suggest that, particulary
> in that Representable is (so far) an adjective rather than a noun.  I'm
> fairly sure nouns serve better as names for objects--is it different for
> modules?
> 
> (That's not to say a new usage of representable as a noun could not be
> "coined".  (My reference for the adjective bit is the current online
> Merriam-Webster (m-w.com:
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=representable&x=10&y=15)
> 
> Just trying to clarify my own thinking.

According to your link:
   "7 : to describe as having a specified character or quality "

Modules create a namespace for functionality that doesn't necessarily 
constitute creating a class. With this you could say that Modules 
describe a set of functionality (or characters/quality).

Modules aren't a thing, they don't describe an object, an item, a noun 
by itself. They describe a set of functionality that can be used on a 
*thing*. That's why they are so useful as mixins. This is also why I 
agree with Bill Atkins in that Representable is a better name for a 
Module, then Representation.

If you create a class MyRep which mixins module Representable you are 
giving MyRep the behavior and ability to be a representation. This 
behavior is best described as being Representable.

Zach