> This raises the interesting question if we shouldn't do some renaming, 
> say "AbstractString" into "String" and "String" into "ByteString". The 
> reasoning being that String is a concept (that of containing 
> characters) not an implementation (that of containing 8 bit latin1 
> encoded characters) and it encourages using the generalization since 
> most people are used to thinking in terms of "String" modifications. 
> Besides, I find names beginnign with "Abstract" or "Basic" *horrible* 
> - it means someone hasn't really thought about what the name of the 
> generalization is (or chosen an outright wrong name so that you have 
> to stick the modifier in front of it) - can you imagine us using 
> "AbstractCollection" instead of Collection, "BasicNumber" instead of 
> Number, or "AbstractBehavior" instead of Behavior?

+1

>
> Horrible. Just horrible. It follows from the abstract concept 
> represented (Number, Collection, Behavior) that these are abstract 
> entities that cannot be instantiated and the concrete subclasses have 
> concrete names (Integer, Set, Class).
>
> I think we should really get away from using these meaningless "basic" 
> and "abstract" versions for names and rather start thinking about 
> *good* names.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
> PS. I'm not fixed on doing the above rename - it would be equally fine 
> with me to change AbstractString to CharacterArray or somesuch which 
> would be somewhat more in line with subclasses of 
> SequenceableCollection having a <Foo>Array like name.

So does someone step and do it?
I can help testing but right now my plate is totalllllll yy  f    u  l
Yu know like in comix.

STf