>If you look at xap.util.ArrayHelper, it al-
>ways takes an array as the first argument.
This seems natural and simple.
I'd propose a further (and particularly uninspired) convention
that when a Java method exists, it be used:
aString.trim() ---> StringHelper.trim(aString)
or
aFoo.bar(a_0,...,a_n) ---> FooHelper.bar(aFoo,a_0,...,a_n)
>I would like to remove the "Helper" part and just
>have the formula where "xap.util.XXXX" is a helper
>class if XXXX is a standard JS class.
This does not seem natural or simple; to have a class named "xap.foo.String"
or "xap.blah.Array" seems like a recipe for future confusion; I think
appending a "Helper" isn't so bad and accurately describes the class.
>Maybe instead of xap.util this should be under xap.lang or xap.js
>or something like that?
Well, if we _do_ do it that way, I'd prefer
xap.helpers.String
(but just look at that name---it looks like it's a string in itself....)
