On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 01:38:46 +0200 > > Bob Rogers wrote: > > It is a good idea. I think I would call it ":class", though. > > I did ponder that, and then worried that people would confuse it with > putting a method into a certain class, which isn't what this is for... > > Jonathan > > Good point. And ":sub_class" or ":sub_type" would probably be even more > confusing. And ":invokable_class" is probably too verbose (and probably > also too general). ":use_class"? > > From: "Will Coleda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:20:32 -0400 > > It could be a pmc instead of a class. How about :type ? > > Perhaps we want to save that for declaring return types? But, > considering Jonathan's point, ":type" is probably better for this after > all. > is this limited to subclasses of Sub? if not, perhaps :pmctype is more descriptive. if so... :invokeable_type? :type seems too easy to get confused about. anyway, good idea, jonathan!
~jerry
