Re: [Pharo-dev] (non)prefixes of Spec classes

I agree with you now it can make the name long. But we could have SpecWindowModel. To me it would help. At least with Spec all the models should terminate with model. On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:

I suppose this applies to other tools/frameworks as well, but is it beneficial to have non-prefixed classes in the system?

e.g. in Spec we have WindowModel, AbstractAdapter, TreeModel, ...

I am not asking because I want these generic terms free, but rather to be more explicit about the classes being from Spec.

Is there any "official" view or preferred view on this?

Thanks, Peter