Igor Stasenko wrote:
> I leaving you to name it properly ;)

Actually SourceCodeManager is fine. It is only annoying when people 
confuse the abstract and the concrete entities and "invent" such obscure 
names as "AbstractString", "PureBehavior" or "BasicSourceCodeManager". 
If SourceCodeManager is the abstract interface, then the concrete one 
might be named StandardSourceFileManager (to access SourceFileArray) or 
similar.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 2009/12/23 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>> On 23.12.2009, at 15:13, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>> 2009/12/23 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>>>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>> There is a basic class, BasicSourceCodeManager
>>>>> which declares protocol, so you can make a subclass of it. Also, it
>>>>> doesn't forcing you to use sourcePointer to be only integer values.
>>>> Do us all a favor and do NOT name classes "Basic" or "Abstract" or "Pure".
>>>> Such names show utter lack of understanding of the problem domain. Being
>>>> abstract follows from the abstract concept represented (Behavior, Number,
>>>> Collection, String) and concrete entities have more concrete names (Class,
>>>> LargePositiveInteger, WeakSet, ByteString).
>>>>
>>> okay, is SourceCodeManager name abstract enuf for you ? :)
>> "Manager" is not really descriptive either ;)
>>
>> I'm trying to remember where I read about how to name classes. Maybe it's one of Kent's Best Practice patterns.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>