Difference between revisions of "Talk:Read-write types"
Peter gummer (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | --[[User:Peter gummer|Peter gummer]] 03:49, 7 July 2007 (CEST) This is very hard to understand. I still don't understand it. Maybe the words '''read''' and '''write''' are confusing me. These are obviously bad keywords anyway, because '''read''' and '''write''' would already be used as procedure names in many classes, so is there something more descriptive? How about '''polymorphic''' and '''monomorphic'''? I don't know whether these are accurate, because as I said I don't understand the proposal yet; but it doesn't bother me having polysyllabic keywords for this. | + | ''''--[[User:Peter gummer|Peter gummer]] 03:49, 7 July 2007 (CEST)''' This is very hard to understand. I still don't understand it. Maybe the words '''read''' and '''write''' are confusing me. These are obviously bad keywords anyway, because '''read''' and '''write''' would already be used as procedure names in many classes, so is there something more descriptive? How about '''polymorphic''' and '''monomorphic'''? I don't know whether these are accurate, because as I said I don't understand the proposal yet; but it doesn't bother me having polysyllabic keywords for this. |
| + | |||
| + | :'''--[[User:Manus|manus]] 23:26, 7 July 2007 (CEST)''': The term were chosen because of the analogy with a generic container where you can read from it and write (add) to it. So when you see `read A write B' for a generic it simply means that you will be reading '''A''' but the only thing you can put is '''B'''. In any case, as pointed out in the article it is just a proposal and any other syntax which would be simpler to understand is welcome. | ||
Revision as of 13:26, 7 July 2007
'--Peter gummer 03:49, 7 July 2007 (CEST) This is very hard to understand. I still don't understand it. Maybe the words read and write are confusing me. These are obviously bad keywords anyway, because read and write would already be used as procedure names in many classes, so is there something more descriptive? How about polymorphic and monomorphic? I don't know whether these are accurate, because as I said I don't understand the proposal yet; but it doesn't bother me having polysyllabic keywords for this.
- --manus 23:26, 7 July 2007 (CEST): The term were chosen because of the analogy with a generic container where you can read from it and write (add) to it. So when you see `read A write B' for a generic it simply means that you will be reading A but the only thing you can put is B. In any case, as pointed out in the article it is just a proposal and any other syntax which would be simpler to understand is welcome.
