current signature : def doStuff(arg1 : Can[Foo], arg2 : Toto) : Can[Bar] With Result: def doStuff(arg1 : Result[Foo], arg2 : Toto) : Result[Bar] Result could be good but is not, when used for argument and not for "result"
more I think about it, more I thought ? was not so wrong/joke. In the Nice language (a old competitor to scala) ? was used to mark value to be potentially null var myVar1 : ?String //myVar1 could be null var myVar2 : String //myVar2 is never null With ?: def doStuff(arg1 : ?[Foo], arg2 : Toto) : ?[Bar] On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 17:42, Mateusz Fiołka <[email protected]> wrote: > Result +1 > > Quite short, only one selfexplaining imo and describes the purpose it serves > well. The only downsides of this name is +3 characters and the fact that the > class could be used also as non result but for other purpose. > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Derek Chen-Becker <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I think that the previously mentioned "Box" would be the only other thing >> that has >> >> The same semantic meaning of "container". Well, as Tim pointed out this is >> a US thing for Can... >> The same brevity. I agree with David that commonly used constructs should >> be short >> >> If it was going to change at all, this would be it. >> >> Derek >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Josh Suereth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Oliver Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yup, when you chose the original name, you did a good job - why second >>>> guess yourself now. Can we just leave it the way it is. >>> >>> Pun intended.... >>> >>> >>> As to my vote (if I'm allowed one)... >>> >>> Can was slightly confusing, but looking at it vs Option makes a lot of >>> sense. Option is also slightly confusing, because I expected it to behave >>> like Either. Either is a great name, as you can tell what it's doing. >>> >>> Result seems ok, but I would vote for something more like Storage. Can >>> is pretty succinct, and once you know how to use it, it's not hard to >>> remember the convention. >>> >>> So I'd swing on the side of sticking with Can unless a really good name >>> is discovered. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
