SS1src: Decide on object class names?

[665b06bd26311dertseha]

°SS1src

Based on the source release, I'm currently in the process of wading through ss-specs and renaming (and clarifying) what was thought "wrong" so far (Issue #58). (Adding information that was completely unknown so far will be separate steps)

For example, an easy fix was to rename "chunk" with "resource" (as this is the actual name of what is stored in resource files - go figure ). "Chunk" was the legacy title from the original writers of ss-specs (I don't know whether this was Jim or even people before him). Existing sources can also continue to live with this old name, as the developing community probably can relate.

Yet I've come across a more difficult decision now: The issue on object class names.
There is the list of the TSSHP (from which also a few current sources still hail from - e.g. the UnderworldExporter), then that of InkyBlackness, and then the actual one in the original source.

Between TSSHP and InkyBlackness there were only minor changes, mostly because I named them more generally. Still, both don't use the exact same names as the source. While synonyms such as "Weapons" (ss-spec) and "Gun" (code) are probably acceptable, others, such as "Items" (ss-spec) and "Small Stuff" (code) might be confusing when modders and developers talk.
Even moreso, the TSSHP list even has a name clash: class 7 is called just "fixtures" at places and class 9 is "panels", whereas the code calls 7 "big stuff" and class 9 are "fixtures". (IB has 7="scenery" exclusively, avoiding the problem).

Long story short, how to proceed? Which names should be the "one true names" used in the future? Should we decide at all, can people live with synonyms? Experience shows that modders and developers should be talking about the same things.
I'm undecided, mostly because regardless of decision, a lot of code would require renaming, hence my callout to the community.

Personally I'm leaning towards the InkyBlackness names over those from the code. For one they don't have clashes, and they seem to fit better for the stuff that actually ended up in them. For example, class 2 name "physics" sounds too abstract, with "Projectiles" it's more relatable what's happening; And TRAP does not exclusively contain traps...
I'd also be fine by simply leaving all as is and have the "dual naming" and list both like I did for now.

Here's a little ASCII-art comparison, for reference:

Code: [Select]

class  code (objapp.h)      InkyBlackness        TSSHP
0      CLASS_GUN,           Weapons              Weapons
1      CLASS_AMMO,          Ammo                 Ammo
2      CLASS_PHYSICS,       Projectiles          Projectiles
3      CLASS_GRENADE,       Explosives           Grenades and explosives
4      CLASS_DRUG,          Patches              Patches
5      CLASS_HARDWARE,      Hardware             Hardware
6      CLASS_SOFTWARE,      Software             Software and logs
7      CLASS_BIGSTUFF,      Scenery              Scenery and fixtures; also just FIXTURES
8      CLASS_SMALLSTUFF,    Items                Gettable; also ITEMS
9      CLASS_FIXTURE,       Panels               Switches and panels
10     CLASS_DOOR,          Barriers             Doors and gratings; also PORTALS
11     CLASS_ANIMATING,     Animation            Animated objects
12     CLASS_TRAP,          Marker               Traps and markers; also MARKER
13     CLASS_CONTAINER,     Containers           Containers
14     CLASS_CRITTER,       Critters             Critters


[665b06bd26507dertseha]

Welp, one lunchbreak later, and things look different again ( Perhaps I'll end up using this board just for rubber-ducking...  )

Preliminary decision:
* ss-specs on InkyBlackness should follow the code as close as possible. Reason: It is meant to document the original engine and resources - not any current fan-project.
* Editor of InkyBlackness can simply change the visible strings for the user. Internal type names can be refactored whenever.
* All other existing projects will have to decide on their own when/how to switch (if at all). Perhaps a notice such as "using naming scheme as per xyz" would suffice.

[665b06bd266c2JosiahJack]

Some of us have the luxury of choosing our names though   
Using namespace Citadel;