On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Chris Nandor wrote:
> We do give our opinions, and in my opinion, as a module-power-that-is, I
> think your name is bad and should be changed.
Noted.
> I suggest HTML-TreeC / HTML::TreeC or something, if you are really set on it.
It's not written in C. Incidentally, the reason for using the
_ (underscore) is quite simply because HTML_Tree is a valid
identifier whereas HTML-Tree isn't. I may get around to
namespacing the C++ code and HTML_Tree would be the namespace
name.
> While it is not the best solution, when the name contains implementation
> details, at least then it is unique.
HTML_TreeC++ is not a valid identifier.
> HTML::Mason is a very good name, actually.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
> About as good as Apache, Tk, and others.
Apache is a full software product: its name can be as
meaningless as automobile names and it's still OK. Mere
modules, however, should be more descriptive (just like the
individual components of a car: I'd like the windshield wiper
control in my car to be called a windshield wiper control).
> It is a unique label that people have come to know.
Just because there are other bad names out there that people
have come to know doesn't mean I have to follow suit.
- Paul
