Christopher Hicks writes: >On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Smylers wrote: >> Christopher Hicks writes: >>> I would think the existing examples might provide some light on this >>> but the modules to interface to emacs seem to be in their own Emacs:: >>> space and the vi-related modules seem to be in Vi::. I'm not sure >>> what the received wisdom is for the "right way" to do this would be, >>> but the option based on precedents could only be Wily::. >> >> But 'Vi' and 'Emacs' are arguable more a Way of Life than a mere editor >> -- also they are so widely known by many people (especially those with a >> Unix background) that there isn't much chance of confusion or ambiguity >> with their names. > >Plus I can see that there's more of a chance for multiple Emacs and Vi >related modules than Wily-related ones.
I would argue that Wily is just as much a way of life as Emacs and Vi. However, it certainly isn't anywhere near as popular - chances are you've never heard of it... It doesn't warrant a toplevel namespace all to itself - though of course my current code uses one :) There are two Wily modules in existance at the moment (that I know of), but they do the same thing - one uses XS to link with the wily libs, whereas mine uses pack/unpack to decode the messages itself. But yes, there's much less scope for multiple modules (due to the fact that the intersection of wily users and perl programmers is small...) >> That possibly doesn't apply to 'Wily'. Or, more to the point, it >> certainly doesn't apply to every possible application that anybody could >> ever want to create a Perl interface to. > >Agreed. > >> There are some 'Excel'-related modules in the Spreadsheet:: namespace. >> I think creating an Editor:: namespace for 'Wily' would be reasonable. > >I'd rather see TextEdit:: or TextEditor:: than the somewhat ambiguous >Editor::, but I'd be happy to see a new name space for these sorts of >things. I'm happy both of those. Is there a preference for 8 or less character names due to some old file system restrictions? If not then TextEditor:: seems better than TextEdit:: or Editor::. -- Sam
