>>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:32:09 +0800, Albert K T Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:39:09PM +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>> But IniFile? Why not Win32::IniFile? Isn't it strictly speaking a
>> Win32 module? Is there any standard associated with .ini nd .reg files
>> tht make it likely or even possible that these file formats will be
>> deployed outside Win32?
> IniFile was written originally to support .ini file access on Unix
> platforms (for the Linux port of Unreal Tournamet). As more and more
> Windows programs are being ported to Unices, there is a growing demand
> for this kind of routines outside Win32, albeit still uncommon. I think
> that when a Unixer looks for tools to access .ini files, it is quite
> unlikely for him to look in the Win32 tree as many of the Win32 modules
> contain native codes (IniFile is Perl-only). Moreover, Win32::Tie::Ini
> already provides .ini access by issuing Win32 calls; if I were to write
> a Win32 program from scratch I would use Win32::Tie::Ini because it is
> better to make use of native platform facilities.
> That said, I would agree to changing it to Win32::IniFile. Please tell
> me what you think. Thank you.
Ah, that's a different aspect, thanks. This leaves me with a foolish
face because I now wouldn't suggest Win32::IniFile anymore but still
dislike IniFile as a name because of the two slots in the root
namespace for the same thing.
New question: would it make sense to take over IniConf for you? If so,
have you talked with the author of IniConf if he would let you take
over? If not, could we find a name that expresses the relation of
IniConf and your module somehow, e.g. IniConf::Wizard or
IniConf::Simple or IniConf::Parser or IniConf::Handler or something
like that?
--
andreas
