starting Pega 7, it is recommended not to use dash at the end of abstract class...

I think this concept of mandating an abstract class using a dash as the last character is to help identifying an abstract class. But since dash are only to denote the class path for pattern inheritance, removing dash makes sense. Also a class is identified by the rule data and not any conventions.

Imagine if Work- is an abstracct class, why is cover class named as Work-Cover and not Work--Cover (one dash as part of class name and other for the pattern inheritance concept) ?? I guess removing the mandate dash makes sense.

Thanks,

Ashok