2010/11/11 Frédéric DEMIANS <f.demi...@tamil.fr>: >> Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure. >> Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a >> shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser, MarcX::Reader::Isis, >> etc. Any objection?
Since MARC is an acronym, I believe all of its letters should be capitalized. Trying to remember to lowercase some of them while coding would make me less likely to want to use your modules. As for adding another top level instead of keeping MARC:: as the primary prefix for the modules, since the modules you are working on seem to be dealing with manipulating standard MARC records rather than something new called "MarcX", I'd say MARC:: would be the place I'd expect to find such modules. Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:28 AM Dueber, William [dueb...@umich.edu]: >I think we should revisit "Biblio::". Yes, I know MARC isn't used only for >bibliographic data, but it's sure as hell not used to speak of outside the >library/museum world. 'Biblio' might not be perfect, but it's certainly not >misleading in any meanigful way. As mentioned above, MARC::* is where I'd be likely to look for modules related to manipulating MARC records. Maybe it's because I haven't needed any of the Biblio::* modules, but I'd be less likely to look there for MARC manipulation modules. Since the modules under discussion appear to be an alternative to the current standard modules for MARC manipulation, the MARC::Record family, it seems like something within MARC::* would be appropriate (as long as the names don't interfere with the existing modules but instead can be used in cooperation with them). Bryan Baldus bryan.bal...@quality-books.com eij...@cpan.org http://home.comcast.net/~eijabb/
