If we all get a say, I vote for "Trit" - after all, with Full, Empty and Failure, aren't we talking about ternary logic?
Or does suggesting that make me a Twit? Kris On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Oliver Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > Ha :), I really think you've let the Can out of the Box by raising this > thread. Don't we all get a vote? After reading all the threads - > +1 Box > > > On 27/12/2008, at 10:06 AM, David Pollak wrote: > > > > 2008/12/26 Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> > >> Just brainstorming here... not sure if we're beating a dead horse... but >> about Option3 to signify it has 3 states? (i.e. Some3, None3, Error3) >> >> It's uglier but could be easier to explain and understand. > > > Personally, it took me a lot to get the concept of Option... mainly because > to me, an Option is this or that, not some or none. Optional would have > been a better choice as is Maybe. In fact, it wasn't until I was playing > around with Haskell and the Maybe monad, that I finally "got" Options. I > would despise the idea of perpetuating what I consider to be one of Scala's > weakest naming schemes. > > It's going to stay "Can", but if I had it to do all over, I'd call it Box. > > Thanks for all your respective thoughts on the subject. > > David > > PS -- The code is pretty much frozen for Lift. There'll be a few last > minute minor changes between now and Jan 2 (or whenever 2.7.3 goes final) at > which time we'll release Lift 0.10 and start on the Lift 1.0-SNAPSHOT > version. We're expecting to ship Lift 1.0 on the 2 year anniversary of the > project. > > >> >> >> alex >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Mateusz Fiołka <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> If Maybe should be not used because of possible name clash in Scala >>> library then how about considering synonyms: Possible and Perhaps? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Caoyuan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> and "Pack" ? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Marc Boschma >>>> <[email protected]<marc%[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I know David has resigned to keeping 'Can', but wouldn't 'Jar' be an >>>> > alternative? That way Empty and Full still make sense... >>>> > >>>> > Initially I thought 'Tin' sounded better but I recognise that term >>>> > wouldn't be as universal. >>>> > >>>> > Marc >>>> > >>>> > On 26/12/2008, at 4:14 AM, Michael Campbell wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> David Pollak wrote: >>>> >>> Folks, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Over the year that Lift has had Can[T] as a replacement for Scala's >>>> >>> Option[T], the name "Can" has required a lot of explaining. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> I've never liked "Can" as a name; always thinking that the opposite >>>> >> of one >>>> >> should be a "Can't". I'm sure it's my own issue to solve, but it's >>>> >> cognitively dissonant to me. >>>> >> >>>> >> Any other container name works better for me, although of the ones >>>> >> you listed, >>>> >> I like "Box". >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/campbellmichael >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
