Speaking from personal experience, what I didn't realize to begin with was that the can was what we in England call a tin, and the connotation of "you can do something" is conceptually very different to "a can (tin) contains x" if you follow my meaning...
I think the problem can be solved by better docs, and a paper that explains the rational of can as a container - this would fix the curve of understanding IMO. What usually happens when noobies ask about can, is that people are pointed in the direction of Option, but if your new to scala, that is fairly meaningless also as those comming from java et al are using to checking for null so don't see why you need a container. Just my two pence Cheers, Tim Sent from my iPhone On 20 Dec 2008, at 14:43, "David Pollak" <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > Over the year that Lift has had Can[T] as a replacement for Scala's > Option[T], the name "Can" has required a lot of explaining. > > As we make the final push into freezing Lift's APIs, do we want to > change the name of Can to something else or should we leave it as > Can. Alternatives are: > Cup > Box > Both of which can be Full/Empty. > > Thanks, > > David > > PS -- The Scala collections classes are getting a redo for 2.8. > I've been gently pestering Martin to expand Option to have a Failure > case. If this happens (it's not really likely for a couple of > reasons), Can will be orphaned. > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > Git some: http://github.com/dpp > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
