# from Andy Lester
# on Wednesday 16 May 2007 09:58 am:
>I don't see that there's anything confusing in using App:: for both
>modules that are apps, and that access other apps,
You forgot "modules that get used by applications", which was
Dominique's original concern. In fact, it generated enough concern to
ask if this warranted a new namespace. Since I have previously thought
the same thing, I see what some might call a trend.
"This is a frontend" and "this is something to use when building a
frontend" are IMO things that belong in different bags.
>Good luck on that. Tell us how it goes.
>...Some place that won't get seen.
>...I'm really not sure what you think "convention" is.
>...Are you going to organize the Conference On Namespace Decisions?
>...unless you choose to be confused by them.
>...navel-gazing
Wow, are you bugfixing on qdos today or what? That's 3 dismissives, 1
snide jab and 2 approximately direct insults in one email. It reads
like: "Shutup. Namespaces don't matter and you're a moron."
Yes, CPAN is a useful mess and there's not a lot of point in trying to
design it, but please don't tell me to shutup just because I'm trying
to help push it into some identifiable piles.
IMO, App:: is too much of a grab-bag to be any sort of useful separation
or organization.
I think authors should strongly consider bin::* for any new utilities.
--Eric
--
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit."
--Ginsberg's Restatement of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
