On Jul 8, 8:38 pm, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > My opinion: no need to create problems when there already are accepted > solutions. > > In the java world, there are conventions for naming things. Stick with them. >
I do see your point and if this is the way the consensus moves I'll follow it. However, the java solution does create the following new problems: 1. It leads to deep directory structures that are horrible to navigate on the command line (even using tab completion) and when browsing source code. I just went to github and browsed the new volt-db library. It uses a java style naming convention and I had to click through 4 levels of directory to get to some source code. 2. It makes the 'ns' declaration at the top of a source file harder to read. Instead of seeing easy to recognise libraries such as compojure, hiccup and ring the person reading has reversed tlds to parse. Somebody ended up on another thread because they had a typo in their title. However, I like their solution of libraryname.author.file e.g compojure.weavejester.api dynamite.acme-corp The hard work of finding unique handles/authors is done by vanity (individual or company). Also, to add my opinion on the original question that started this thread, I prefer 'foo.api' to 'foo.core' as it gives a clearer idea of which namespace should be pulled in by the user. Saul -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
