> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wednesday 30 April 2003 16:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> it is, with an addXYZ(Condition) method marking it up - I'm not > > >> really fond of any of the proposed naming conventions so far. > > > > > > Whats wrong with add(Condition) ? > > > > Nothing so far. > > The only problem I can think of is that it clashes with > Collection.add(Object) and thus the problem is that > classes may implement it "by accident". I my > implementation (bugzilla 19446), I use the signature > nestedElement(Class), but I would be happy with anything. >
how about addConfigured(Class), we already use this prefix so it should not be too much clashes to worry about. Jose Alberto
