[ruby-talk:15385] Re: Some help on naming please

On Mon, 14 May 2001, J J wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but here's a guess:
> > here is a proposal:
> >  ArrayMixin -> HollowArray
> >  ArrayInterface -> MicroArrayI
> >  ArrayContract  -> MicroArrayC
> I don't think that's a good idea. Something else to remember, 'I' could also
> be Integer, 'C' could be Class or Constant, etc.

I wouldn't think so, because "Interface" here is as a suffix, and Integer,
AFAIK, is not likely to be used as a suffix.

You have a better grief for "C", where Class is likely to be a suffix.
Well, at least it could become likely in the future, when we become able
to subclass Class freely.

> > MicroArrayI is a spec for minimal arrays.
> How about MinimalArray or MinimalArraySpec?

Spec is not so bad, but the issue with it is that
MinimalArraySpec===object looks a little weird, but then so would
MinimalArrayI.

MinimalArray alone may be an idea... not sure.

SimpleArray wouldn't be bad either. More ideas?

> >Including it in a class is like
> > saying "this class should support all of these operations".
> How about AbstractArray or RequiredArrayOperations?

And AbstractMinimalArray, RequiredMinimalArrayOperations... those are
quite long names. Those last two would be used in most places where one
checks for an Array like this:

	raise TypeError unless Array === foo

by converting to this:

	raise TypeError unless AbstractArray === foo

and I guess this is in a lot of places, because most code supporting Array
is supposed to be able to support AbstractArray. I'd like a shorter name.

> >MicroArrayC is
> > a boosted version of MicroArrayI: it actually verifies how operations are
> > used and how they are performed.
> MicroArrayC = SafeArray, CheckedArray, VerifyingArray, etc.
> MicroArrayI = FastArray, UncheckedArray, NonVerifyingArray, etc.

FastArray is really not a good idea because the Contract includes the
Interface... so every SafeArray is a FastArray too. =) In general: the
Interface name is going to be written in a lot of places; the contract
name can be longer because it will only be written in implementor classes.

Could "Protocol" be a better name than "Interface" ? It could be:

	ArrayP
	ArrayP::Contract

or

	ArrayP
	ArrayP::Assertions

matju