Paul J. Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I submitted the module, the module-powers-that-be could
> have rejected it: they didn't.
We do not reject modules. We do give our opinions, and in my opinion, as a
module-power-that-is, I think your name is bad and should be changed. I
suggest HTML-TreeC / HTML::TreeC or something, if you are really set on it.
While it is not the best solution, when the name contains implementation
details, at least then it is unique.
> There simply aren't enough synonyms in English that accurately
> describe what my module does. Therefore, the only resort would
> be to contrive a name that has nothing to do with what the
> module does. (For instance HTML::Mason is a bad name. Can you
> tell what that does from the name? I can't.)
HTML::Mason is a very good name, actually. About as good as Apache, Tk,
and others. It is a unique label that people have come to know.
> I don't want to
> pick a meaningless name just so it's unique. Sorry.
The problem is that when you pick an existing name for another purpose, it
becomes de facto meaningless.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
