Array{Nullable{Float64}} is very appealing, but it's not equivalent to
DataArray{Float64} because of how things get stored in memory. I'd like to
stick with DataArray{Float64} for a while, since it makes it easier to apply
existing array functions. Getting rid of DataArray is very tempting, though.
-- John
On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:37 AM, David Anthoff <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for Nullable (I have a .Net background). Data{T} seems like a very generic
> name for a very specific concept. For people that have not read the doc and
> would come across code that used this construct, the name wouldn’t give the
> slightest hint what this might be about, whereas something like Nullable
> would probably point people at least in the right direction (also, much more
> googleable). I’m with your dislike for the name DataArray, again I think that
> is a generic name that doesn’t point people to what it might mean. Maybe
> better to rename DataArray to something like NullableArray? I guess the
> really nice syntax would just be that Array{Nullable{Float64}} would end up
> creating the same thing as a DataArray right now, but as far as I understand
> the type system that wouldn’t work, right?
>
> Cheers, David
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of John Myles White
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:06 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [julia-users] OptionTypes.jl
>
> Yeah, that's a good idea. I'd kind of like to call this something like
> Nullable since I'm not a huge fan of the name DataArray, but consistency is
> an important thing to maintain.
>
> -- John
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Bob Nnamtrop <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> What about naming it the Data{T} type instead of Option{T} (or Optional{T}).
> Seems to fit in the DataArray{T} theme better and gives me a better idea what
> it is from the name (at least once one knows about DataArrays).
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Myles White <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Julia, I think your naming suggestions will be more impactful if you're
> careful to describe your opinions in terms of your subjective preferences,
> rather than in terms of objective facts. Describing something as "more
> intuitive" isn't a very effective rhetorical strategy if others don't already
> share your intuitions. Rather than assert that X is more intuitive, it would
> be great to demonstrate why your preferred name could be more intuitive.
>
> Just my two cents about effective argumentation strategies.
>
> -- John
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Júlio Hoffimann <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> One suggestion is to have it named as the more intuitive Optional{T}.
>
> Júlio.
>
