Greg Lindahl writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:38:00PM +0100, Smylers wrote: > > > How about Vehicle::Tesla::ModelS then? > > > > Does putting Device:: in front of that lot actually add anything, > > other than to the unwieldiness of the name? > > Vehicle:: doesn't generalize very well to toasters, refrigerators, > etc.
Does it have to? If modules for such household goods come along, how much does it help users for those modules to share a namespace with modules for vehicles? (Note they can share implementation, or not, independently of whether they share a namespace.) > If a new top-level name is a good idea, It isn't a good idea _per se_; it's only a good idea if none of the existing ones seem to fit. > I'd suggest an Internet-of-Things top-level, Thing:: or IoT:: or IOT:: Would somebody who has a Tesla car (or indeed a toaster) think of searching for IOT? Would somebody seeing IOT in a module name realize what it means? (I don't think I would.) “Thing” is such a generic word that I don't think prepending Thing:: adds any meaning at all. While you're using “thing” in quite a specific way, almost anything could be thought of as a thing. I'd say Device:: is more meaningful than Thing::. > This particular module, btw, will probably be good for future Tesla > vehicles; it's anyone's guess how the API will evolve. In that case go with your instinct and name it ::Tesla. If other Tesla APIs come into being (either for different cars or later versions for the Model S) your module can always be extended to cope with those somehow. Smylers -- Stop drug companies hiding negative research results. Sign the AllTrials petition to get all clinical research results published. Read more: http://www.alltrials.net/blog/the-alltrials-campaign/
