Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Sean M. Burke wrote: > >There was an implication of "now." It does /not/ say > >that I will be too busy /forever/. > > Analyses de texte aside, what are you actually going to do, and when are > you actually going to do it? I don't know. - Paul

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

At 02:02 PM 2000-11-09 -0800, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: >>At 11:16 -0800 2000.11.09, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >>>I'm simply too busy not to deal with this issue. >>You have shown you have no desire whatsoever to cooperate, to follow >>the advice of the people runnin

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > At 11:16 -0800 2000.11.09, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > > I'm simply too busy not to deal with this issue. > > You have shown you have no desire whatsoever to cooperate, to follow > the advice of the people running the CPAN, and to be a reasonable person.

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote: > I'm not sure what you were looking for from [EMAIL PROTECTED], if > not the best-considered advice of some people that have been helping > manage a large and successful software repository. People get Perl modules from CPAN. If one dist

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:16:03AM -0800, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > > > If time is the issue, you could have done it already in the time you've spent > > explaining why you don't want to. > > 1. You underestimate the amount of work that needs to be do

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

At 11:16 -0800 2000.11.09, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > 2. Fine: I will get more and more terse in my replies. > And I noted it. Are we done yet? > I didn't take the time then for the same reason I don't want to > take the time now: I have better things to do that to site >

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > If time is the issue, you could have done it already in the time you've spent > explaining why you don't want to. 1. You underestimate the amount of work that needs to be done. 2. Fine: I will get more and more terse in my replies. > I

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

At 9:45 -0800 2000.11.09, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >So essentially I'm being asked to pay for his mistake of >> >misnaming his module/distribution ... > >> If that is how you prefer to see it, then yes. Though I don't see it as >> being a pric

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > I wrote: > >So essentially I'm being asked to pay for his mistake of > >misnaming his module/distribution ... > If that is how you prefer to see it, then yes. Though I don't see it as > being a price to pay. I see it as action to take, but the action i

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

At 8:30 -0800 2000.11.09, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > >> You are arguing at one time against confusion, > >I'm not arguing anything. I never started this whole argument. Yes, you are. You are arguing that your names should get to remain. You have a position

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote: > You are arguing at one time against confusion, I'm not arguing anything. I never started this whole argument. > but here you are advocating more confusion, by changing the names of > established distributions. Yes, it is a problem that his dis

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

At 7:13 -0800 2000.11.09, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >On 9 Nov 2000, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: > >> > So why doesn't his filename match? It looks like the problem >> > isn't really my problem after all. >> >> Good catch, but this has been stated before. The solution is obvious, >> but it affects y

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On 9 Nov 2000, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: > >So why doesn't his filename match? It looks like the problem > >isn't really my problem after all. > > Good catch, but this has been stated before. The solution is obvious, > but it affects you. So if we apply the obvious solution, it will be

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:17:25 -0800 (PST), "Paul J. Lucas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > So why doesn't his filename match? It looks like the problem > isn't really my problem after all. Good catch, but this has been stated before. The solution is obvious, but it affects you. So i

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

At 10:17 -0800 2000.11.08, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >> All I would suggest is to classify HTML::Tree deeper, maybe HTML::Tree::Cxx. > >That's the best suggestion I'ev heard so far; however, a >subclass of Cxx is too ugly (never mind that the implementation >langauge should not be part of the name). Y

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

On 8 Nov 2000, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: > I wrote: > >HTML_TreeC++ is not a valid identifier. > > Cplusplus, C_plus_plus, Cxx, ... Too ugly. > 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 ca

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

> 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 vot

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

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 s

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

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. > I suggest HTML-TreeC / HTML::TreeC or something, if you are really set on it. It's not written in C. Inci

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

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

Re: HTTP::Request::Form and TreeBuilder.pm (fwd)

que? -- ask bjoern hansen - more than 70M impressions per day, -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:42:40 -0800 (PST) From: Paul J. Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sean M. Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Nick Chirc