On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Vesa <brut...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I was wondering few thing while reading lift examples. Could the Link > class be turned into a case class so reading would improve? new Link > ("a" :: "b" :: nil, false) could be RecursiveLink("a", "b") and new > Link("a" :: "b" :: Nil) could be something like AbsoluteLink("a", > "b"). This would at least eliminate the need to explain scala's list >
Shouldn't the reader already be aware of Scala's list construction, since that is in fact the language we're using? If you think Scala's list construction is difficult to for a new reader, I think explaining a case class would be even more confusing. You might want to look at how case classes differ from a normal class<http://www.scala-lang.org/node/258>as well. construction syntax to the reader. I found out extremely unintuitive > the syntax to create Links with dsl like ("help" :: "" :: Nil) -> > true. This syntax is usually associated with generation of key-value > pairs even in lift APIs and creates confusion (at least on my case). I > guess varargs might be out of question if scala backward compatibility > is considered, but I don't see a reason not to use case classes here. > > - Vesa > > > > -- James A Barrows --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---