I see that we are thinking the same way here :) I understand that there has been a push toward renaming abstract types AbstractXXX. Unless all abstract types are going to get the 'Abstract' prefix, I don't quite understand this.
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:19:30 PM UTC+2, Gabriel Gellner wrote: > > Continuing to think about all the ideas presented in this thread. It seems > that the general advice is that almost all functions should at first pass > be of "Abstract" or untyped (duck typed) versions. If this is the case why > is Abstract not the default meaning for Array? Is this just a historical > issue? This feels like the language design is sort of fighting this advice > and instead it should have been that we have Array meaning AbstractArray > and Array meaning something like ConcreteArray to put the incentive/most > natural way to add types. Similar for Vector, Matrix etc. >
