Hi all
I have some methods receiving either a Class or a Trait instance as parameter, so I usually call variables with names like 'aClassOrTrait'. Searching for a more synthetic name, I wonder if 'aBehavior' would be fine. But IMO these examples show contradictions: - Trait *is* a behavior: TBehaviorCategorization users ---> an IdentitySet(Class Trait) TPureBehavior users ---> an IdentitySet(TraitBehavior Behavior) (actually this makes me think 'aPureBehavior' is another alternative for my variables) - Trait is *not* a behavior: TBehaviorCategorization isBehavior ---> false TClassAndTraitDescription users ---> an IdentitySet(ClassDescription TraitDescription) (I both are behaviors, why not call it TBehaviorDescription?) Thanks in advance for your help. Martín |
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Martin Dias <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi all +1. For all my code that can handle both, traits and classes, I ALWAYS use the word Behavior rather than class. Problem is that aTrait isBehavior -> false. But I think it is an implementative details and I don't like it. As you say, a trait for me is a behevior and therefore I use that word.
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
+1
I also want to distinct behavior objects from others and I need to include Traits in that criteria. On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Thanks!
Would be nice to unify some names in the metamodel. On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Carla F. Griggio <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 > I also want to distinct behavior objects from others and I need to include > Traits in that criteria. > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Martin Dias <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I have some methods receiving either a Class or a Trait instance as >>> parameter, so I usually call variables with names like >>> 'aClassOrTrait'. Searching for a more synthetic name, I wonder if >>> 'aBehavior' would be fine. >> >> >> +1. For all my code that can handle both, traits and classes, I ALWAYS use >> the word Behavior rather than class. >> >> Problem is that aTrait isBehavior -> false. But I think it is an >> implementative details and I don't like it. As you say, a trait for me is a >> behevior and therefore I use that word. >> >> >>> >>> >>> But IMO these examples show contradictions: >>> >>> - Trait *is* a behavior: >>> >>> TBehaviorCategorization users ---> an IdentitySet(Class Trait) >>> >>> TPureBehavior users ---> an IdentitySet(TraitBehavior Behavior) >>> (actually this makes me think 'aPureBehavior' is another alternative >>> for my variables) >>> >>> - Trait is *not* a behavior: >>> >>> TBehaviorCategorization isBehavior ---> false >>> >>> TClassAndTraitDescription users ---> an IdentitySet(ClassDescription >>> TraitDescription) >>> (I both are behaviors, why not call it TBehaviorDescription?) >>> >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your help. >>> Martín >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > |
In reply to this post by tinchodias
Hello
2012/5/15 Martin Dias <[hidden email]>
Hi all But Trait isKindOf: Class => true So why "aClass" is not good for you?So aClass is bad |
Hello
> But > Trait isKindOf: Class => true > > So why "aClass" is not good for you? But I was talking of Trait "instances", like TPureBehavior or TBehaviorCategorization. TPureBehavior isKindOf: Class => false TBehaviorCategorization isKindOf: Class => false |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |