Hello, Would it be at all possible that a full-feature [functor] package extend a basic [lang.functor] package? This would allow for re-use. We would have to argue about which features go where of course...
Gary -----Original Message----- From: Arnd Kohrs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:41 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] Functor debate >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 1. Functor Types >> - Function: Functor which has a result >> - Predicate: Functor which has a boolean result >> - Procedure: Functor which has no result >> >> 2. Number of Arguments >> - *Unary*Functor: one argument functor >> - *Binary*Functor: two argument functor >> - Functor: (Null-ary) no argument functor Stephen> I don't dispute that this is the 'correct' or 'right' Stephen> design for a full functor implementation. However this is Stephen> very much bigger in concept, and in 'religion', than [lang] Stephen> could support or would wish to. [lang]s functors do not Stephen> have this goal - they aim to be simple commonly used Stephen> callback interfaces. If the bigger concept 'functor' does compromise the narrower 'callback' scope of the current [lang].functor package then the package should be renamed to more explicitly state its scope. [lang].callback would in my opinion much more appropriate. The package name [lang].functor is not only misleading about its scope but will certainly lead to confusions with the 'heavier' concept functor. So if the renamings, which I suggested earlier, are not acceptable (which I agree on since the scope of the package is to standardize commonly used callback interfaces (and not more)), then it is a good idea to rename the package to a better name. I suggest that [Lang].functor is renamed to [Lang].callback. What do you think? Cheers, Arnd. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
