Can isn't bad. On the one hand, it's a container, on the other hand it's "can I do something", and in fact both work, barring the name of Full and Empty.
It still feels weird. In my opinion it's trying to concretize something abstract. Honestly, the best name for it might be something like 'Maybe', it's not all that concrete, even in language. Full, Empty, might be 'Yes', and 'No' respectively? On Dec 22, 1:38 pm, Alex Cruise <[email protected]> wrote: > Josh Suereth wrote: > > In the spirit of LOLCode, I make the following proposal: > > > Can becomes Bukkit > > Just think though, a bit of pimping and... > > object Can { > ... > def has[T](t: T) = Full(t) > > } > > val gotz = Can has "cheezburger" > > ... which constitutes my vote for "keep Can" -- it's a comedic noun and > also a semantically relevant verb. :) > > -0xe1a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
