Seems reasonable. No need for the extra 'Tools' level.
Tim.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:36AM -, Wim wrote:
> As there are no other comments, could we agree on the namespace
> Simulation::SynSim ?
>
> Wim
>
> _brian_d_foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wim
As there are no other comments, could we agree on the namespace
Simulation::SynSim ?
Wim
_brian_d_foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Tim. Brian suggested this top level:
> >
> > "i think you should break up that top leve
Thanks, Tim. Brian suggested this top level:
"i think you should break up that top level to make it more
general (and more expandable). for instance:
Simulation::Tools
--
brian d foy"
There could be other categories, e.g. Interfaces, Wrappers, etc.
Of course, for those wanting to use the Syn
The 'Tools' second-level names seems superfluous to me.
Especially as SynSim is "a set of modules".
Tim.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:26:06PM +0100, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote:
>
> The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List:
>
> modid: Simulation::Tools::SynS
