On 4/30/06, Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another point about packages, though not specifically about colons: if > > you find yourself naming a lot of functions or variables foo-this and > > bar-that (e.g. mail-read, mail-send, mail-retrieve), this should > > signal to you that these functions belong in their own package: > > mail:read, mail:send, mail:retrieve. > > What are people's opinion about the above in the contest of CLOS accessor > methods (or other methods)? (Assuming you don't want to use a package for > each class...) > > I find the one thing that annoys the hell out of me with CLOS is that I cannot > decide on how I prefer to name methods. In message passing systems this > problem is eliminated due to the implicit namespace created by each class, > but this is of course not the case in CLOS. I have seen various versions but > none of them seem clearly superior:
Nikodemus Sivola had an interesting opinion on this: http://random-state.net/log/3349776628.html I have started to use the convention that he mentions (e.g., foo-of as an accessor for slot foo), but I've still found situations where even that convention doesn't read as nicely as one might want. -- Jack Unrue _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
