If I had it to do over, I'd call it Box... but the cost of change seems to outweigh the benefit of change... Can it is. Thanks for your input.
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Matt Harrington <mbh.li...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:13 AM, TylerWeir <tyler.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Once people get Can, I think it makes sense, so I think we can leave > > it. > > > > As a replacement, I can't think of a good real-life example of a thing > > with a failure indicator that fits the bill. :) > > > > What about OptionWithFailure, OptionWF, OptWithF? > > It's more typing, but it's accurate. > > > > FailureIndicatingOption? FIOption? > > > > These are pretty much my thoughts on the issue also. I like > OptionWithFailure the best, but of the suggestions for very short > names, Can is a reasonable choice once you see an explanation. > > Matt > > > > -- 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 liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
