On 2006-04-30, Jack Unrue wrote: > On 4/30/06, Peter Schuller 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.
I like foo-of, too. I haven't used it enough to run into any problems with it yet. :) Remember WITH-SLOTS and WITH-ACCESSORS. If you find yourself losing screen space because of accessors and want to Just Use Variables, you can. -- L _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
