Dr Bean wrote:
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.
Generally, names are from generic to specific, so it'd be
Schedule::RoundRobin
-or-
Algorithm::Schedule::RoundRobin
But that name can apply to many things, such as process scheduling[1].
If the algorithm is not generic enough to apply to anything, it needs
more context (when naming: context on left, detail on right):
Sports::Schedule::RoundRobin
or similar...
1. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling>
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
