Re: [PEPr] Changes in proposal for Util::Util_Observable

On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 02:28, Justin Patrin wrote: > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:18:57 +0200, Stig S. Bakken <stig@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 21:51, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > On Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:2925PM -0000, Heino H. Gehlsen wrote: > > > > Changed the 'I' prefix into 'Interface' postfix. > > > > > > Back when the discussion about this proposal was started, someone > > > suggest to call the class Interface_Observable, which I like a lot. > > > What is the overall opinion on this? IMO Interface_Observable is the > > > most crystal-clear name and it describes the purpose of the class (being > > > an Interface that provides observer capabilities) best. > > > > Observable_Interface rings a lot better in my ears, the intention is to > > make it sound English after all. > > > > But it's not an Interface you can Observe, it's an Interface to make > something Observable. Also, Interface is a general category and IMHO > should be a prefix for that reason. Class names in PEAR are supposed > to go from general to specific. I doubt anyone will misunderstand "Observable_Interface" as "an interface you can observe". There is precedence for this format in how exception and error classes are named, diverting from that is what would cause confusion. - Stig