On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Elliott Sprehn wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > ... Is that even a valid use case? It seems dubious to instantiate a > > > class named "request" and then not send a request. > > > > You can't go down that line of thinking because it doesn't generalize. > > For instance why would I instantiate a class named "node" without > > putting it into the tree? > > There are all kinds of reasons why you may do this. Hence, we support it. > > Reasoning by use case definitely generalises -- it's how we design > everything around here. :-) > > But reasoning by naming certainly doesn't. His comment was about creating a class named request.
