At 13:59 -0800 2000.11.07, Paul J. Lucas wrote:
>> While it is not the best solution, when the name contains implementation
>> details, at least then it is unique.
>
>HTML_TreeC++ is not a valid identifier.
HTML_TreeCPlusPlus is.
>> About as good as Apache, Tk, and others.
>
>Apache is a full software product: its name can be as
>meaningless as automobile names and it's still OK. Mere
>modules, however, should be more descriptive (just like the
Modules are full software products too, in some cases. Mason is such an
example.
The bottom line is that you took a name that was essentially already taken.
You seem to be interested in taking a name that is not confusing, but that
is exactly what you are doing, so that is an argument you cannot possibly
win.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
