On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:13:53 +0100
"A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, your syntax parser engine could be the core of
> > Syntax::Highlight and all the specific language parser (the
> > grammars) could be live in Syntax::Highlight::* namespace.
>
> That's stupid. We've had a long discussion about the name, and
> now you want to stick it into what according to consensus is a
> bad namespace? Keeping backwards compatibility is a stupid reason
> for not fixing a mistake and an even worse reason for introducing
> new mistakes.
Initially, I suggested Text::Highlight because Andrew wanted a namespace for a
common API syntax highlighter and unfortunately (for him) his preference,
Syntax::Highlight::*, is already used. Syntax::Highlight wasn't a bad namespace
for me.
There are a standalone Perl (old) syntax highligther on CPAN
(Syntax::Highlight::Perl), and a new general purpose pluggable syntax
highlighter. Why cannot merge together (with collaboration of
Syntax::Highlight::Perl author) under already existent namespace
(Syntax::Highlight) instead of creating/using new one?
So, namespace problem is a minor problem, for me: Syntax::Highlight,
Text::Highlight, Text::Highlighter, Text::SyntaxHighlight and so on
are all equivalent! :-)
by
- Enrico
