Personally I kind of like ? name ... although I feel many people will not. Going further having Full and Empty extending ? may "lift"quite a few eyebrows :)
BTW I totally agree that Result is not ok. Br's, Marius On Dec 21, 7:45 pm, "David Bernard" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
