In the spirit of LOLCode, I make the following proposal:
Can becomes Bukkit
Full becomes BukkitOf (or "Bukkit of" via some DSL like syntax)
Empty becomes Noob (or "Bukkit of Noob" via some DSL like syntax)
Failure becomes WTF?
val x : Bukkit[String] = WTF?(new RuntimeException("O NOES!"))
val y : Bukkit[String] = Noob
val z = BukkitOf("Cheezburger")
Trust me, every time you need to use a bukkit, you'll ROFL (without the ROF)
to yourself.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Tim Perrett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> IMO, and echo'ing jorge's comments, I *really* dont think using ? is a
> good idea.
>
> The rational of this being:
> - Code that's littered with Can[MyType] is readable, compared with ?
> [MyType] which would be confusing and non-obvious for new-commers.
> - Using operands for such common operations / idioms I would be
> strongly against, as its not the usual case.
>
> Im down with Box[MyType] however... either way, if we move to Box, or
> stick with Can, more documentation / examples is a must.
>
> Cheers, Tim
>
>
> On Dec 21, 8:07 pm, "Charles F. Munat" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I, too, like ?, but I agree that others may not. Could mean too many
> > things. But what about ??? instead? Or just two (??)? Or why not steal
> > Haskell's thunder and use Maybe?
> >
> > Chas.
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
