Generally, I agree, but not at the expense of understandability. And about the only time I have to type it is as a result type when it can't be inferred. The rest of the time I'm using Full() or Empty, which are nice and short. Even Box, which I think is much better, requires explaining. OptionWithFailure probably does not.
And with an IDE and code completion, it's not an issue. I'm more interested in reducing boilerplate than forcing type names to the shortest possible length. Just my opinion... Chas. David Pollak wrote: > Because Can is three letters and OptionPlus is 11 and a frequently used > construct should be easy on the fingers. > > On Dec 20, 2008 11:15 AM, "Oliver Lambert" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ok so Can is not either an Either or an Option, its a Can. I kind of > wondered when I first used Can, and it was described as an enhanced > Option, why it wasn't called something like Option+ with None, Some > and Failure. > > On 21/12/2008, at 5:47 AM, David Pollak wrote: > Can has map, > flatMap, filter etc. So it can be u... > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Lift" group. To post to ... > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
