On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Vesa <brut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering few thing while reading lift examples. Could the Link
> class be turned into a case class so reading would improve? new Link
> ("a" :: "b" :: nil, false) could be RecursiveLink("a", "b") and new
> Link("a" :: "b" :: Nil) could be something like AbsoluteLink("a",
> "b"). This would at least eliminate the need to explain scala's list
>
Shouldn't the reader already be aware of Scala's list construction, since
that is in fact the language we're using?
If you think Scala's list construction is difficult to for a new reader, I
think explaining a case class would be even more confusing.
You might want to look at how case classes differ from a normal
class<http://www.scala-lang.org/node/258>as well.
construction syntax to the reader. I found out extremely unintuitive
> the syntax to create Links with dsl like ("help" :: "" :: Nil) ->
> true. This syntax is usually associated with generation of key-value
> pairs even in lift APIs and creates confusion (at least on my case). I
> guess varargs might be out of question if scala backward compatibility
> is considered, but I don't see a reason not to use case classes here.
>
> - Vesa
>
> >
>
--
James A Barrows
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
