-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
IMO, App:: is too much of a grab-bag to be any sort of useful separation
or organization.
Well, this is a perfectionnist stance. The upside is that having two
purposes for a single namespace component is only one too many, and
I
Dominique Quatravaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Application:: is nearly pristine right now and that's why I proposed
it in the first place, but I understand that it's a bit of a mouthful
(or typeful?).
I think Application (or Applications) is a good idea. Its length does
not really matter
On May 17, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Johan Vromans wrote:
I think Application (or Applications) is a good idea. Its length does
not really matter since it needs to be typed just once. (This would be
different for modules.)
I don't see how Application:: is any better than App::. It seems
like
+1 what Andreas said. If you have a big application, take a TLNS.
# from Dominique Quatravaux
# on Thursday 17 May 2007 09:47 am:
Well, this is a perfectionnist stance
sure. My goal is perfection. I can be pragmatic, but I don't see a
reason to lower the aim. Would perfect be bad?
I
Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see how Application:: is any better than App::. It seems
like change for the sake of it.
A. It is not Application:: (in the sense of a Modules namespace). It
is a place (destination) to put applications.
B. App:: is already in use as a
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+1 what Andreas said. If you have a big application, take a TLNS.
Although this implies sharing all your application specific modules to
the whole world. This may not always be desirable.
(Think of the recent mess created in core Perl by adding all
B. App:: is already in use as a namespace for Modules.
That's a distinction that is not at all clear, and will not be
understood by most users.
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
# from Johan Vromans
# on Thursday 17 May 2007 12:28 pm:
[a-z]:: is reserved? I get that 'bin.pm' would be intrusive, but
::?
I do not understand this. Please explain.
from perlmodlib:
Perl informally reserves lowercase module names for 'pragma' modules
like integer and strict. Other
* Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-17 07:10]:
The aspell binary can dump the dictionary names, but someone
might only have libaspell installed and not the binary. I'm not
aware of any other way to detect the dictionary other than
trying to use it.
Put the load attempt within `eval{}`
Hi Gabor,
http://use.perl.org/~Alias/journal/32221
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perl informally reserves lowercase module names for 'pragma' modules
like integer and strict. Other modules normally begin with a capital
letter and use mixed case with no underscores (need to be short and
portable).
1. that's an informal
On May 17, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Johan Vromans wrote:
Even perl distinguishes 'bin' from 'script', so 'script' would be
better.
I'm trying hard to get people to stop saying script when referring
to their Perl programs. I'd prefer that we not use it anywhere at all.
xoa
--
Andy Lester =
* Dominique Quatravaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-16 11:10]:
I'm DOMQ on CPAN, and I'm about to release a new application,
NutsPKI. Problem is, I don't know where to put it on the CPAN,
if at all.
Put it in App::. ’s good enough.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-16 23:15]:
IMO, App:: is too much of a grab-bag to be any sort of useful
separation or organization.
So we agree to use bin:: instead, though we can’t enforce that,
so then someone releases a non-program in the bin:: namespace and
suddenly that TLNS is
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-17 20:55]:
# from Dominique Quatravaux
# on Thursday 17 May 2007 09:47 am:
Application:: is nearly pristine right now and that's why I
proposed it in the first place, but I understand that it's a
bit of a mouthful (or typeful?).
This desire to
On Thu, 17 May 2007 18:47:33 +0200, Dominique Quatravaux [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Other ideas?
One of the oldest ideas for namespace decisions was that when a family
of modules constitutes something you can perceive as a framework, then
any top level namespace is ok. It makes no sense when
On May 17, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
One of the oldest ideas for namespace decisions was that when a family
of modules constitutes something you can perceive as a framework, then
any top level namespace is ok. It makes no sense when everybody just
grabs a toplevel namespace
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Andy Lester wrote:
What's with all these ad hoc appending of x, like DBIx and RTx? Maybe the
componenty parts should be Appx::* ?
Well, DBIx is actually something Tim Bunce requested, since he didn't want
people adding stuff to the DBI hierarchy. For Mason extensions,
On May 17, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
What's with all these ad hoc appending of x, like DBIx and RTx?
Maybe the componenty parts should be Appx::* ?
Well, DBIx is actually something Tim Bunce requested, since he
didn't want people adding stuff to the DBI hierarchy. For Mason
# from A. Pagaltzis
# on Thursday 17 May 2007 02:20 pm:
Apple joined the fold several years ago
No, they didn’t. They only put the Unix utilities there because
it’s Unix convention. Application binaries live in the app’s
bundle,
Which brings us back to the use a tlns for Applications. The
# from A. Pagaltzis
# on Thursday 17 May 2007 02:17 pm:
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-16 23:15]:
IMO, App:: is too much of a grab-bag to be any sort of useful
separation or organization.
So we agree to use bin:: instead, though we can’t enforce that,
... we have to make up
On May 17, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
I'm actually having a difficult time getting you all to agree to
*recommend* that things which will be installed in a directory named
bin/ should have a namespace named bin::? Wow.
LWP::UserAgent has stuff that installs into bin.
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-18 04:50]:
The problem with App:: is that it grew that way and there was
never any recommended convention for naming distributions of
small utilities.
A problem for what or whom exactly?
There used to be a scripts section on CPAN that no one remembers
On May 17, 2007, at 10:26 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
On May 17, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
I'm actually having a difficult time getting you all to agree to
*recommend* that things which will be installed in a directory named
bin/ should have a namespace named bin::? Wow.
24 matches
Mail list logo
