I was thinking specifically of AbstractString, not AbstractArray. I just don't quite get why it had to be made consistent with Array/AbstractArray, when String was a nice general name, and it would be consistent with the IO/IOStream/IOBuffer example that you mention.
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:56:09 PM UTC+2, Jonathan Malmaud wrote: > > Well, those need the ‘Abstract’ prefix to distinguish them from their > concrete counterpart. There was already “Array” in the language, so what > are you gong to call the type that is array-like but not literally an > array? > > But take another common - there is the abstract type “IO", who subtypes > include IOStream and IOBuffer. There isn’t a need for “AbstractIO” because > there is no “ConcreteIO” to disambiguate it from - there isn’t a concept of > what a “ConcreteIO” would even be. >
