> My understanding is that this is the core of our argument. Unlike you,
> I feel that in case of fluent API the consistency
> is a big deal. A fluent API, the way I understand it, is not just a
> bunch of chained methods. I feel we need more input
> from other EG members in order to resolve this, so I solicited their
> feedback on the subj. in a separate thread earlier
> today.
As I already posted some days back, a fluent API to be accepted by users should read like English. If one can just combine any sequence of methods, this is chaining, but not fluent.