At 12:26 25.06.2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: >On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > >[...] > > I thought it was just because Tim (I think it was; cc'ed) likes it > > better that way. =) Maybe there's a more technical explanation. > > Tim? > >And... In all seriousness I don't see how the "three level names" >will help much. The tricky and important part is to describe what >the module does; not when it runs. > >I imagine that usually work done in the odd phases will be part of a >module primarily doing something else. (Log handler opening logs; >Apache::DBI opening database handles early, ...).
Yes, but three-level names might help describe what the module does :-) Don't take the propositions too religiously, I never said that the 2nd-level name *had* to be a phase name.. I would much rather see logical namespaces that just "seem right". -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
