On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Dr Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-30 13:30]: > >Scoring, however, is perhaps another area that could have its > >own module.
> However, I think it’s not unnatural in the least to have a > Games::RoundRobin for scheduling and Games::RoundRobin::Scoring > for scoring. Wouldn't that mean I would be claiming a name that a more ambitious module had more right to use? libtour models a lot more of the administration of a tournament, eg it allows for preliminary rounds and finals, managed programmatically. > If anything, I’d be inclined to suggest > Games::Tournament::RoundRobin instead. You are referring to a > very specific kind of scheduling/scoring, a point which the > ::Schedule/::Scoring namespaces don’t really capture, > irrespective of the level at which they appear. I never really thought about that. I guess the reason I didn't include 'Tournament' is because I wanted to keep the length of the name down to 3 levels. Perhaps I should call it Tournament::RoundRobin::Schedule. Most of the content of the modules in the Games hierarchy have little to do with the content of this module. Scheduling can include many things, eg dates and venues, but timetable scheduling seems to be the name for software that makes timetables, a similar sort of problem. -- Dr Bean, Taiwan
