>>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Paul J. Lucas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote:
>> 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.
> Noted.
Please note another vote.
>> I suggest HTML-TreeC / HTML::TreeC or something, if you are really set on it.
> It's not written in C. Incidentally, the reason for using the
> _ (underscore) is quite simply because HTML_Tree is a valid
> identifier whereas HTML-Tree isn't. I may get around to
> namespacing the C++ code and HTML_Tree would be the namespace
> name.
>> 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.
Cplusplus, C_plus_plus, Cxx, ...
>> HTML::Mason is a very good name, actually.
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
For bigger projects it is quite often helpful to choose a name that
comes from a different domain. I wouldn't apply this rule to your
project, but I also have considered HTML::Tree already taken by Sean
although his module is really called HTML::TreeBuilder. Sure, we have
135 items in the HTML:: namespace, it is crowded there, but please do
what you can to avoid mental namespace pollution.
>> 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
> individual components of a car: I'd like the windshield wiper
> control in my car to be called a windshield wiper control).
You say *a* windshield wiper control and you're right. When you buy a
windshield wiper control there may be several to choose from and they
will have to have classifying names to make clear which one you and
your dealer are talking about. All I would suggest is to classify
HTML::Tree deeper, maybe HTML::Tree::Cxx.
>> It is a unique label that people have come to know.
> Just because there are other bad names out there that people
> have come to know doesn't mean I have to follow suit.
Please avoid letting polite arguments degenerate into a flame war.
--
andreas
