Luca Fascione <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 2:12 PM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On 2026-08-26 06:08, David Kastrup wrote: >> > I'm allergic to "base" in class names. >> >> A particular reasoning? >> > > I'd be keen to hear too. > > For the projects I worked on, these fairly empty base classes > that mostly have a role of indicating "this object belongs to this general > group" > do come up with a certain regularity. Calling them all "base" when they > have that role > actually can be quite clarifying in practice, it ends up working like a > declaration of intent > > This is why I feel David's name actually was a rather good choice
In this case it would be a fairly full base class (there are quite few members particular to only book or bookpart). I have no idea whether that would make a difference regarding the undesirability. I would definitely not talk about a "base" in Scheme, but I am not sure how that should transfer to the C++ side. -- David Kastrup
