Levi Bard wrote:
>> - Renaming Map.remove(K key) in Map.unset(K key)
>> - Renaming Map.contains(K key) in Map.has(K key)
>> - Make Map<K, V> inherit from Collection<Map.Entry<K, V>>
>
> I like unset. "has" is not different enough from "contains" for my
> liking - I can see it being a source of future confusion ("What's the
> difference between contains and has?!").
> How about something that's clearly map-related, the way "unset" is?
> "maps"? "has_set"?
> (For a point of reference, ruby uses "has_key?" and "has_value?".)
Then I would say *get, set, unset, reset, has_key and has_value*...
It seems to me those names are short and expressive. They are coherent
altogether, whereas the actual get, set, remove and contain are really less.
My vote goes to those names.
If we can agree then, I'll make the changes and introduce the
inheritance relationship.
Didier.
_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
