On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 07:01:59AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:
> Michael Neumann wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:42:06PM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> >
> >>On Thursday, June 17, 2004, 11:03:28 PM, gabriele wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>il Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:27:25 -0600, "Ara.T.Howard" <ahoward / noaa.gov>
> >>>ha scritto::
> >>
> >>>>HashEnabled?
> >>
> >>>the point is that a Map(temporary name) object can look like ruby's
> >>>Hashes, but have a much different implementation (say, some kind of
> >>>tree), and hashing defines a specific behaviour. Dictionary may be
> >>>another one, but still ugly to me.
> >>
> >>Map or Dictionary are the only real choices, AFAIC.  I really like Map
> >>as a name here.
> >
> >
> >Instead of the suffix -able (as in Enumerable), a -Mixin suffix is another
> >choice, e.g. MapMixin or HashMixin.
> 
> Or MapMethods and/or HashMethods.
> 
> It reads nicely ...
> 
>    class Dictionary
>      include MapMethods
>      ....
>    end

Yes, I like it. That sound much more natural and tells what's actually
doing (including methods related to mapping).


Regards,

  Michael