From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tagged type naming convention
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 16:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2017-11-06T16:32:04-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2622083-4152-4133-863c-8f87f16ce7f5@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1191720124.531531591.228791.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 7:43:07 PM UTC-4, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> Jere wrote:
> use? Pros/Cons based
> > on experience using it?
> >
> > One concern for it is consistency. It was presented with tagged
>
> I use multiple for packages and single for types. Consistency is tricky. I
> created a few interfaces today and used Drawables for package and Drawable
> for the interface.
That is currently what I do (or I have a more descriptive package name if
it makes sense to do so. I like this method. I was thinking of
incorporating it with the Rosen method (see my response to Jacob
Sparre Anderson). I haven't sold myself on that yet though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-07 0:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-04 16:50 Tagged type naming convention Jere
2017-11-04 23:43 ` Luke A. Guest
2017-11-07 0:32 ` Jere [this message]
2017-11-05 19:01 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2017-11-07 0:43 ` Jere
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox