So why does having "Abstract" in an abstract class make sense? Clearly "public abstract class" is equally unequivocal.
-----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kent Tong Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much Mind Bridge <mindbridgeweb <at> yahoo.com> writes: > Interfaces and classes are two rather different concepts. It seems to me > that they need to be distinguished clearly. Removing the 'I' in front of > the name and the characters that saves are a much smaller win compared > to the loss of clarity and the time wasted in figuring out what can be > done with that type. Using "I" is bad because it violates the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle. If the fact that Foo is an interface is already stated in: interface Foo { ... } There is no need to state it again in its name. Similarly, you won't duplicate the methods in Foo into its name, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
