I can't help but be taken aback by your reply. If you want to convince me that another way is the better way to implement it, you need to make a greater effort to lay down your position convincingly. Would you be so kind to at least disprove my reasoning instead of just saying that I am wrong?
I guess you want to deny the following statement, right?: "If we don't rely on action names, we don't need Is(Procedure)ing-functions [...]"
I was talking at least about several different things in my last post.

Regarding your reply: Only if you regard procedures of actions as interna of actions which shouldn't be visible to the outside. I don't. Procedures are properties which form the most important part of how the actions behave and are thus a more reliable and (backward compatible) source of information as e.g. the action name. Plus, procedures are valid with all objects, they don't require that certain functions are defined in the clonk's code.

But I already see where this discussion is heading, thats why I am taking a shortcut: Properties of actions vs. Is*-callbacks in script. Ultimatively, what is the better choice - have a IsMounted() function in the clonk control code or have a property "Mounted" in the action definition? It is only a tiny difference and I think it is debatable which of them is the better choice. I deem the property the better choice in order to capsulate the properties of an action into the action definition rather than put some of it into the script.

But still, I am not convinced yet that to check for the procedure in the case of being attached/mounted (rather than a Mounted property or a IsMounted() callback) is not enough. See also my reply to Isilkor's post.