>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. Functor Types
>> - Function: Functor which has a result
>> - Predicate: Functor which has a boolean result
>> - Procedure: Functor which has no result
>>
>> 2. Number of Arguments
>> - *Unary*Functor: one argument functor
>> - *Binary*Functor: two argument functor
>> - Functor: (Null-ary) no argument functor
Stephen> I don't dispute that this is the 'correct' or 'right'
Stephen> design for a full functor implementation. However this is
Stephen> very much bigger in concept, and in 'religion', than [lang]
Stephen> could support or would wish to. [lang]s functors do not
Stephen> have this goal - they aim to be simple commonly used
Stephen> callback interfaces.
If the bigger concept 'functor' does compromise the narrower 'callback'
scope of the current [lang].functor package then the package should be
renamed to more explicitly state its scope. [lang].callback would in my
opinion much more appropriate. The package name [lang].functor is not
only misleading about its scope but will certainly lead to confusions
with the 'heavier' concept functor.
So if the renamings, which I suggested earlier, are not acceptable
(which I agree on since the scope of the package is to standardize
commonly used callback interfaces (and not more)), then it is a good
idea to rename the package to a better name.
I suggest that [Lang].functor is renamed to [Lang].callback.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Arnd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
