> From: Martin Heidegger [mailto:m...@leichtgewicht.at] > Sent: 16 January 2012 15:22 > > To fix it by renaming one would need a complex naming convention in interfaces like: > function <namespace>_<functionality>() > > Because if we create a interface we don't know in advance what other interface > from other frameworks it might be used with it: that means you better write something > like this: > > interface IContext { > function get robotlegs_core_destroyed(): Boolean; } > > because some other interface might have another getter for "destroyed" > of which the robotlegs team doesn't know in advance.
Unless you are creating an overly-large class, it is incredibly unlikely that you'll need one class to implement two interfaces that both contain the method "destroy". Remember, if you aim for classes to be single purpose, this problem should not occur. Or do you know of a real-world situation where it can occur? > (btw.: Complaining about non-descriptive function name in a > example without implementation is tedious) Sorry, I wasn't complaining about "test", I was just using it as an example. The better the name the less likely that there would be a conflict. Guess it didn't come across that way :) David.
