Slava Pestov wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the (>>foo) setters with effect ( obj tuple -- ) are still used > every once in a while, I think they should be renamed to foo<<. This > will make code easier to read (less punctuation) and make their names > easier to type. Furthermore, the (foo) convention here is misleading > since there is nothing 'internal' about these words: they are not > unsafe and not really implementation detail either. What do you guys > think? I think it's probably a good idea. I'm slightly worried about foo<< being confused with foo>> but not to the point where I'd say it's a bad idea, since I've actually confused foo>> and >>foo once, which is perhaps even worse. > > Slava > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Factor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
