* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-18 04:50]: > The problem with App:: is that it grew that way and there was > never any recommended convention for naming distributions of > small utilities.
A problem for what or whom exactly? There used to be a scripts section on CPAN that no one remembers anymore, btw. (Actually it’s still around. Unfortunately it can house only self-contained single-file utilities, not distros, which I surmise is why it slipped into oblivion.) > So, the argument against a recommended name for a place in > which to put utilities is: > > A. It has never been like that and we fear change. > B. History is right, there is no future. > C. Chaos will win anyway. The CPAN cannot be refactored. Modules might change name once, very soon after their first release. After that, they are where they are, for good. So every change irreversibly increases entropy. The onus is on you to show even a single practical reason that could overcome the inherent entropy disadvantage of your proposal. > Yet, the question "where should I put my frobnicator program on > CPAN" keeps getting asked. And I for one will keep answering “put it in App”. Maybe if we do this long enough, the apps will outnumber the libraries? > The only point of the hierarchy is to provide some clash > prevention. Without the ::, we would be separating with _ > anyway. I doubt you can argue that “NutsPKI” will ever be the subject of a clash so that argument would lead us to just dumping it in the root namespace and calling it a day. Works for me. > I'm actually having a difficult time getting you all to agree > to *recommend* that things which will be installed in a > directory named "bin/" should have a namespace named "bin::"? > Wow. I have just deleted my third response to this paragraph and shall not attempt another, because I am obviously incapable of avoiding biting sarcasm here. (I had to spend long enough to edit the rest of the mail down to a more productive tone.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
