Am 25.03.15 um 17:32 schrieb Torsten Bergmann:
Hi Tudor,

>However, I think there is significantly more value in examples that do return objects.

Yet again: no doubt that they may be of value. This is not the point. If they provide "more value"
than methods that do not return an instance
depends on what you want to achieve with them.
��
But please accept the fact that they are NOT THE ONLY WAY of giving "examples" on system usage
to others. There are in fact others as well.
��
Regarding your script suggestion:
Examples and script have in common is that they can be executed - but that does not
automagically makes them the same. An example is CONCEPTUALLY not the same as a
script.
The purpose
of creating a script is a different from the purpose of creating an example.
A script is something I ran, an example is something that is explicitly provided for others
to learn
from it.
��
>Until now, nobody is really using the <example> except the code that is packaged in GT
��

For me one really important thing is: get the names right.
4.0 will be released soon. What is being introduced now will stay for a while.

You discussion makes it clear to me that <example> is misleading and thus not
an optimal name (for both usages). So it would be better to choose something more
intention revealing like <exampleCode> and <exampleInstance>. This also makes
room for more example ideas in the future.

My 2 cents.
Andreas