It took me a long time to understand what an Option what. Personally, Maybe (Haskell) makes more sense to me. Perpetuating Option as a name is, IMHO, less than optimal.
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM, David Bernard <[email protected]>wrote: > > If you want 3 letters "Opt" to show the relation with Option > If you want less "?" (question mark) but it's already used by > i18n/resourses bundles (but it could be changed from ?("my sentence > key") to $("my sentence key")). I'm haunted by Tony ;) > > my 2 cents useless contribution > > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 21:49, Matt Harrington <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:13 AM, TylerWeir <[email protected]> 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
