I would rather it be SQL::AbstractSyntaxTree because then someone would not
have to "know" what AST meant to figure out if that is what needs to be
used.
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 02:06 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Part of my reasoning for asking about a separate C module name is that
I intend for the C module to be useable with any programming language,
through a binding layer (XS in Perl 5's case, ? in Parrot's case),
much as GD or libXML a
Thank you very much to all of you who replied (6 people at least), even though only
some of them are quoted below.
At 10:41 AM +0100 8/12/03, Ed Avis wrote:
> How about just SQL::Tree?
>
> Since it is a Perl module nobody should think this is a package of SQL
> routines for tree handling.
>
> Bef
At 3:03 PM -0400 8/12/03, Matthew Simon Cavalletto wrote:
>I believe the convention is for the portable C library to be named something short
>like libSQLOM, with the Perl code either in SQL::ObjectModel or a related namespace
>like SQL::ObjectModelXS or SQL::ObjectModel::libSQLOM.
Thank you Mat
How about just SQL::Tree?
Since it is a Perl module nobody should think this is a package of SQL
routines for tree handling.
Before you use 'abstract syntax tree' make doubly sure you know what
an AST is and how it differs from a concrete syntax tree. I don't!
--
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
