I agree with Chris.
On the point of *_XS names. I would encourage people to have both XS/non-XS
called the same and choose which to install at install time. I have done
this with some of my modules.
Graham.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 06:03:00PM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 23.17 +0200 2000.06.26, Steffen Beyer wrote:
> >Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >
> >1> I think that the suggested name for the new OO interface,
> >1> Date::Object, is a Very Bad Choice. I severely dislike embedding
> >
> >Exactly *why* do you think so?
> >
> >1> either the interface style or the implementation style to the name of
> >1> a module.
> >
> >*Why* do you think this is such a bad idea?
>
> Because most people don't care what style is used for the interface,
> they care about getting some task accomplished. And those who DO
> care about the style and not the functionality, well, they should be
> shot.
>
> Note that "Date::Object" tells me not a jot about what the module
> actually does for me. So the name is DOUBLY bad. It not only tells
> me about the interface, which I don't care one whit about, but it
> doesn't tell me what the module does, which is what I do care about.
>
> I also think names like Text::CSV_XS are Really Bad. Pick a new name
> if you have to, don't tell me how it is implemented. I can read the
> docs if I happen to care (which I probably won't).
>
>
> >2> And unfortunately I don't see how I could switch on and off the overloading
> >2> easily on demand. Moreover, this would involve some ugly hacking and surely
> >2> also some time overhead.
>
> Well, I don't know the implementation details, but I've never had
> significant problem with making stuff alternately functional or OO.
> Worst case scenario is to write it in OO and then have wrapper
> functions that you can export.
>
>
> >2> That way people can opt for more comfort and more speed penalty or less
> >2> comfort and fastest possible speed.
>
> That assumes facts not in evidence, that the OO interface equates to
> more comfort.
>
>
> >4> Therefore I still need a good name for the OO frontend module.
>
> I think that possibly one does not exist. Now, Date::Calc::Simple or
> Date::Calc::Easy might be better ... but it might also be misleading,
> if the only difference is that it is OOP.
>
> Maybe there is not a need for this new module? Just a thought. Good luck,
>
> --
> Chris Nandor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pudge.net/
> Andover.Net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://slashcode.com/
