问题
I start reading Lift framework source code, I find that there're so many methods are defined using a name like methodName_? , is there a convention that _? has some special meaning?
def empty_? : Boolean = {}
回答1:
The ? denotes that this is a predicate, a function returning Boolean. This convention goes back to Lisp, where ? (Scheme), p or -p (other Lisps, simulating the question mark with a "similar" letter) also denote predicates. Think of it as asking a question, "is the object empty?"
Scala will only allow mixed identifier names (containing alphanumerics and punctuation) if you separate them by _. E.g.,
scala> def iszero?(x : Int) = x == 0
<console>:1: error: '=' expected but identifier found.
def iszero?(x : Int) = x == 0
^
doesn't work, but
scala> def iszero_?(x : Int) = x == 0
iszero_$qmark: (x: Int)Boolean
does.
回答2:
You're unlikely to see the construct outside of the lift framework; I suspect that it's mostly Ruby-envy.
Almost any other Scala project will shy away from this syntax. Not because of the trailing question mark, but because it's yet another way to introduce underscores into your code - and the symbol is already far too heavily overloaded.
Based on an evaluation of multiple Scala projects, the notation can be reasonably described as non-idiomatic.
UPDATE
The reason that the underscore is required is to disambiguate from infix notation, in which:
x?y
would be read as
x.?(y)
with ? being a method name. Whereas:
x_?y
Clearly demarks x_? as being atomic.
The syntax is an example of what is formally known as a "mixed identifier", and is intended to allow definitions such as
def prop_=(v:String) = ... //setter
def unary_- = ... //prefix negation operator
It could (arguably) be considered a hack when similar construct is used simply to shove a question mark at the end of a method name.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4354261/why-do-people-use-as-an-identifier-suffix