On 07/08/10 14:37, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Oliver Charles
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think having Role:: in the package name is important, and it does convey
information about the function of a module. A role has a use case that is
substantially different from a class - you do not instantiate it, you
compose it. For this reason alone, I personally enjoy the separation of
instantiable objects - my classes - and roles. This is not dissimilar to the
C++ practice (or perhaps it's Java) of prefixing all interfaces with an "I"
You cannot put whole specification into the name - so it will never
work automatically that seeing a name you can decide if you need this
module or not.
I was never trying to imply that this would help automate anything, but
this acts as a hint. And hints save me time and energy when I'm trying
to focus on the actual problem.
