ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simeon H.K. Fitch" <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Wait and Available
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:26:27 GMT
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:46:04PM -0800, Steve Loughran wrote:
> > Thomas, I do not like the "I" convention, myself. In general, I do not
> like
> > embedding type information into names as types can be changed and get out
> of
> > sync with the name. Indeed, interfaces often start life as abstract
> classes.
> type is bad -it is brittle and the compiler usually handles type safety
> anyway. functionality is a different case. Does the 'I' specify type or
> behaviour?

<flame-fodder description="Go ahead, make my day!">
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think the discussion is
getting a little crazy. If it isn't specified or disallowed in

then, as they say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do.". That is,
follow the conventions of the existing code base. If the interfaces in
the existing code base already have the 'I' prefix or the 'Intf'
postfix, then great. Otherwise (as is our case) don't use it, unless
you can convince the whole group to rename all the interfaces.


View raw message