On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 07:41:31AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Clemens Giegerich wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have written a script (perl Tk) which doesn't fit into the current > > script categories. > > It's called mkFilter.pl a script with GUI for testing perl regular > > expressions, filtering input data (text) and generating template > > scripts. The script doesn't fit into any existing category. > > > > My suggestion for a new category is Text::Filter. > > I'm not sure I understand what it does, but this category makes sense > from your explanation.
Uhhh. "Text" is notoriously non-ndescriptive. Unless one is really working with "text", as in "an arrangement of characters", one is usually better of thinking of something more descriptive. In this case, how about something beginning with "Regex::" or "Template::"? (Seeing some interface/usage examples would help in better ideas.) > > > But Tk::Text::Filter could be better. > > > > But I think the script categories are organized by funktion not by > > libraries. "Text" is a really broad function. > I agree, the scripts are, and should be, organized by what they do, not > by implementation. The fact that it is in Tk is (from the perspective of > categorization) unimportant. > > > Another suggestion could be devel (for developing like the module > > category). > > No. devel is utterly meaningless, and has been repeatedly rejected as a > category. It does not help people find stuff. Just my $0.02, but it I think the same for "Text". Think what your module does, and how would you like people to find it. "Text::Filter" is hopelessly ambiguous, at least to my eyes. > seems to be the historical consensus of the list. > > -- > Rich Bowen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://kenya.rcbowen.com/ -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
