I agree, the names could be improved. Is there still a chance to do so? Heiko
2009/10/25 Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> > > I was looking at Actor.scala, which contains SimpleActor, SimplestActor, > TypedActor, GenericActor, and ForwardableActor. > Some people will say, once you know what something does, who cares what > it's called? But names can really make a difference in learning curve, > memorization, and code readability. > Other than ForwardableActor, do these names reflect what they do? > My suggestions: > Change SimpleActor to Messageable (it only defines an abstract ! method; > arguably more general than an actor) > SimplestActor to AnyMessageable (it's SimpleActor with Any for T) > TypedActor to RespondingActor etc. (what it adds is !? and !! methods) > GenericActor to AnyRespondingActor (or could it be replaced by > 'RespondingActor with AnyMessageable'?) > ForwardableActor to ForwardingActor (it doesn't get forwarded, it > forwards messages) > Thoughts? > > Thanks. > > > > -- Heiko Seeberger My job: weiglewilczek.com My blog: heikoseeberger.name Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
