Share via

API Naming - Most debated name on the BCL are...

  • Article

So.. in my previous post, I asked "which two names wa the most debated names on the BCL". Well, the types that got the most debate for its name are:

Nullable<T>
Collection<T>

Surprised? Not suprised? Do you think they are named appropriately?

<Editorial Coment>
Why is there only 2? Shouldn't you tell me "Top 3"?
"Hardest API to name #3" should be available in the next Orcas CTP. So I won't let the cat out of the bag just yet. :)
</Editorial Coment>

Comments

  • Anonymous
    October 09, 2006
    Can you say what were the options, and what was the argument about?

  • Anonymous
    October 09, 2006
    What is so controversial about those two types? They seem appropriately named. There are parts of the design that I do not like (especially in Collection), but the names seem very appropriate.

  • Anonymous
    October 09, 2006
    I don't get it. Maybe Collection is a little to generic, though I don't see where, but Nullable seems dead-on.

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2006
    Krzsyz talks about some difficulty in designing Collections here: http://blogs.msdn.com/kcwalina/archive/2005/03/15/396086.aspx

  • Anonymous
    October 16, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 30, 2006
    Once again, I am very excited that the new CTP is available. :) My second feature for Orcas is available

  • Anonymous
    May 02, 2007
    Collection<T>, although a useful class, is horribly named. "Collection" is a very general term for a structure which holds things (see ICollection and ICollection<T>). Collection<T> is essentially a List<T>, with some overrides included for customizing the behavior if desired. That means it is basically a slightly MORE specific version of List<T>. But it has a LESS specific name. Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatsoever? What was the justification for calling it Collection<T> in the first place?