A. Pagaltzis writes:
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-02 22:10]:
Eric Wilhelm writes:
I'm working on CAD::DXF for now,
Cad is a well-known acronym. I have no use for anything
cad-related in my life at the moment, so I know that I can
safely ignore that module. But as it
Austin Schutz writes:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:04:11PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
The FF:: namespace is a terrible idea, in my opinion. I expect that
it will be meaningless to the majority of module searchers. The
argument that search makes names irrelevant is just silly.
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-03 09:20]:
But that's still grouping together all file-format-related
modules (under Process::), rather than grouping them by
function.
I was not being serious. :-)
Regards,
--
Aristotle
“If you can’t laugh at yourself, you don’t take life seriously
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:30:20AM +, Smylers wrote:
There are several places where somebody could first encounter a module
name:
Ok, I want to do something with my flash file. I search for
'flash file'... Oh look, there's a flash file parser. Do I care what
it's called?
A
Austin Schutz writes:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:30:20AM +, Smylers wrote:
[Austin wrote:]
Do I care what it's called?
A large search results listing is one such place. You want to be able
to pick out the potentially useful modules from the list, so having
their names be
# from A. Pagaltzis
# on Friday 02 December 2005 02:45 pm:
Process::video::x_flv
Process::application::x_shockwave_flash
Process::image::x_dxf
Process::audio::mpeg
Process::image::png
Process::text::html
That's great! Problem solved.
On Dec 2, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Austin Schutz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:04:11PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
The FF:: namespace is a terrible idea, in my opinion. I expect that
it will be meaningless to the majority of module searchers. The
argument that search makes names irrelevant is
--- Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, you and a few other vocal people have very strong opinions
about this, which I don't begrudge you. Can we move the
discussions to a different list?
While I certainly agree that long discussions about how to name modules
get tedious after a
# from Ovid
# on Saturday 03 December 2005 12:22 pm:
Then that conversation would legitimately jump back here and
would eventually jump to the naming list ... over and over again.
That would be even more tedious (hard to believe, I know).
And eventually everyone in the thread (except the list,
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 12:22:16PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
--- Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, you and a few other vocal people have very strong opinions
about this, which I don't begrudge you. Can we move the
discussions to a different list?
While I certainly agree that long
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from David Nicol
# on Wednesday 30 November 2005 02:18 pm:
isn't there a multimedia name space? name spaces per-product
that is being supported make sense --- Flash::parseFLV perhaps?
What else will appear in the Flash:: namespace? Will macromedia release
a pure perl
On 12/2/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
What else will appear in the Flash:: namespace? Will macromedia release
a pure perl version?
In about 10 days time, I'm going to forget utterly that FF means File
Formats. Does it need to be so terse?
Tossing out
Eric Wilhelm writes:
# from David Nicol
# on Wednesday 30 November 2005 02:18 pm:
isn't there a multimedia name space? ame spaces per-product that is
being supported make sense --- Flash::parseFLV perhaps?
What else will appear in the Flash:: namespace?
It doesn't matter if nothing
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:04:11PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
So, I already published it as FLV::Info, but this discussion has
convinced me that FileFormat::FLV is the best option. I may use that
name for v0.02. My only hesitation is that nobody else seems to be
using that top-level
Chris Dolan writes:
So, I already published it as FLV::Info, but this discussion has
convinced me that FileFormat::FLV is the best option.
I still don't see what's to be gained from having all modules that deal
with specific file-formats grouped together -- or more specifically why
that
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-02 00:20]:
What all file format parsers and dumpers have in common is that
they deal with File Formats. In a lot of cases, the only
module that is going to be created is for that format. I'm
working on CAD::DXF for now, but would rather name it
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-02 22:10]:
Eric Wilhelm writes:
I'm working on CAD::DXF for now,
Cad is a well-known acronym. I have no use for anything
cad-related in my life at the moment, so I know that I can
safely ignore that module. But as it happens, referring to DXF
in the
Austin Schutz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:04:11PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
So, I already published it as FLV::Info, but this discussion has
convinced me that FileFormat::FLV is the best option. I may use that
name for v0.02. My only hesitation is that nobody else seems to be
Hi Chris,
I’ll make the assumption that whoever is going to look for the
module is most likely to simply query search.cpan.org for “FLV”.
On that basis, how descriptive are the ideas?
* Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-30 16:10]:
So, is FLV::Info fine?
That sounds okay.
Or File::FLV?
# from A. Pagaltzis
# on Wednesday 30 November 2005 07:49 am:
Or File::FLV? Or File::FLV::Parser?
I don’t think File:: is right for this.
Right, because it's not a filehandle or otherwise IO/filesystem related.
Should we be using an FF:: namespace for File Formats? I've got a few
modules
isn't there a multimedia name space? name spaces per-product
that is being supported make sense --- Flash::parseFLV perhaps?
Or File::FLV? Or File::FLV::Parser?
I don't think File:: is right for this.
Right, because it's not a filehandle or otherwise IO/filesystem related.
--
David L
21 matches
Mail list logo
