hi sandy;

On Fri, 31 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> No one likes getIsXXX! This was a decision based on my limited (basically
> no) knowledge about IDL.

and i am pretty limited in my IDL skills too, but....

> My fear was that IDL always binds XXX attributes to get/setXXX methods,
> which is not always appropriate. For example, assume we want a method to
> return whether a type is anonymous. The ideal name would be
> "isAnonymousType()". But if the "get" prefix is used, it becomes
> "getAnonymousType()", which is far away from what it really means.

but you could say AnonymousTypeYesNo() and in the circumstance that you
describe it would become getAnonymousTypeYesNo().

or you could use AnonymousTypeTrueFalse()

or AnonymousTypeCheck or AnonymousTypeTest....

just a suggestion...

> If IDL is capable to bind read-only boolean attributes to isXXX() methods,
> I'd be more than happy to see it (than getIsXXX). IDL gurus, is this
> possible?
> 
> Cheers,
> Sandy Gao
> Software Developer, IBM Canada
> (1-905) 413-3255
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                      
>                              
>                     "Christopher                                                     
>                              
>                     Ebert"               To:     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>      
>                              
>                     <cebert@pocket       cc:                                         
>                              
>                     this.com>            Subject:     RE: PSVI interface changes     
>                              
>                                                                                      
>                              
>                     05/31/2002                                                       
>                              
>                     01:16 PM                                                         
>                              
>                     Please respond                                                   
>                              
>                     to                                                               
>                              
>                     xerces-j-user                                                    
>                              
>                                                                                      
>                              
>                                                                                      
>                              
> 
> 
> 
> 
>            Hi,
> 
>            I _do_ use Schema and 'getIsXXX' looks like it's trying to
> follow two conventions at once. I would prefer 'isXXX' for booleans but
> I'm happy with 'getXXX' too. I don't suppose we can change the component
> API instead? The IDL could have XXX as the attribute, no?
>            Huh. Taken another way, it means I wouldn't want to send someone
> to look at code that used PSVI as an example because I wouldn't want
> them to name their attributes/accessors that way. So unless you're
> trying to set up 'getIsXXX' as a new convention I would eschew it.
> 
> 
>            Chris
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to