On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 12:43:37PM -0400, Andrew M. Langmead wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 12:49:52PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > I think the Mac:: category could be read as 'Macish'.
> >
> > Same goes for all the platform specific categories. Spawning Macish::,
> > Win32ish::, VMSish::, Sola
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 12:49:52PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I think the Mac:: category could be read as 'Macish'.
>
> Same goes for all the platform specific categories. Spawning Macish::,
> Win32ish::, VMSish::, Solarisish:: categories would not be good!
>
> Certainly if I wanted to read a Ma
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 12:46:47PM -0400, Andrew M. Langmead wrote:
>
> So with those issues out, I guess names I find reasonable, in order of
> preference, would be:
>
> Macish::Resource
> FileFormat::Mac::Resource
> File::Mac::Resource
I think the Mac:: category could be read as 'Macish'.
Sa
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:59:46AM -0400, Kirrily Robert wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 12:21:06AM -0400, Andrew M. Langmead wrote:
> | I guess to bring it to a point, I strongly feel that Mac:: is the
> | wrong hierarchy for the module to be in. The choice of Data:: wasn't
> | done without any
