+1 what Andreas said. If you have a big application, take a TLNS.
# from Dominique Quatravaux
# on Thursday 17 May 2007 09:47 am:
>Well, this is a perfectionnist stance....
sure. My goal is perfection. I can be pragmatic, but I don't see a
reason to lower the aim. Would perfect be bad?
>I hear Andy's argument that the CPAN is bound to remain a mess anyhow
I hear it too. I can deal with it. But, if it can be cleaner in the
future with some discussion and suggestions, I consider that a good
thing. The great thing about Perl is anybody can upload a module to
CPAN (and the bad thing about Perl is anybody can upload a module to
CPAN.)
>> I think authors should strongly consider bin::* for any new
>> utilities.
>"bin::" is lowercase and therefore reserved for pragmas.
[a-z]:: is reserved? I get that 'bin.pm' would be intrusive, but ::?
>Also, "bin" means either "binary"
Sure, I guess they should have called it /app/ or /pro/ way back when
everything was a binary (though there were probably scripts then too),
but really who cares if it is binary or not? It is a program.
Also, consider the benefit of `perldoc bin::sometool`. To me, that's
worth minor confusion of the uninitiated. But who are these
uninitiated? Strawberry perl has C:/Perl/bin right?
>"/usr/bin" (but Perl is >portable to non-UNIX systems
So is the name "/bin/". Lots of qdos machines have c:/bin/
>"Application::" is nearly pristine right now and that's why I proposed
>it in the first place, but I understand that it's a bit of a mouthful
>(or typeful?).
This desire to shorten is of course where /bin/ came from in the first
place. Apple joined the fold several years ago, so it is a pretty
well-established convention unless you're a british qdos user I guess
-- I've know one guy who's first impression was "recycle bin".
--Eric
--
hobgoblin n 1: (folklore) a small grotesque supernatural creature that
makes trouble for human beings
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
