On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 02:57:20PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:47:29PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > A DNS name is assuming too much about the organizational
> > structure and a mile long hex digit isn't very friendly, and neither
> > of them is very descriptive. "XPG4 SysV IPC" would be. (I just made
> > that one up.)
> Oh, I quite agree with your first (as quoted) sentance. I just don't see
> how as "XPG4 SysV IPC" is any better then IPC::SysV::XPG4. And /neither/ of
Alone as such it wouldn't be, and it even couldn't be 100% true since
the XPG4 binding is for C, but let's make it "XPG4 SysV IPC [EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> them is good enough to be a contract name -- I'm certian that there's more
> then one possible way to bind XPG4's SysV IPC scheme into perl. (And I
> don't even know what XPG4 is.)
A UNIX standard. I guess nowadays we should be doing SUS instead.
> Speaking of contract names, is Damien about?
The Australien mad professor should be around.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
