Rich Bowen wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Clemens Giegerich wrote:

> The name results from a beginner point of view. In our department there
> are many users which have only basic knowledge about programming
> therefore the script was called after the primary function for this
> users: making filter scripts. This is the reason why my first category
> request was Text::Filter too.

My point was that I have no idea what "filter" means. Presumably it
meant something particular to your users. To me, filter means perhaps
something that is done to coffee, or not done to fine wines, or what
happens to my email before it reaches my mailbox so I get less spam. In
the context of regular expressions, or of your script, I don't know what
filter means.
 

That is exactly the point. Instead of filtering coffee, wines or email you filtering text (Text:: !!!) by regular expressions or the saved scripts.
 
> > My opinion, for what it's worth, is that "Regex" might be a more
> > appropriate category for this particular program, if I am correctly
> > understanding what it does.
> >
>
> If you see the primary function of the script to develop regular
> expression than the right category should be Regex:: but the script
> should also get a new name as you already mentioned (e.g mkRegex.pl,
> regexEvaluater.pl, ...). I developed the script for exactly this purpose
> but after some time I mainly used it for filtering too. Now I think the
> script should be named and categorized by the beginner point of view
> (the primary users).
>
> >
> > --
> > Rich Bowen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ... and another brother out of his mind, and another brother out at
> > New
> > York (not the same, though it might appear so)
> >         Somebody's Luggage (Charles Dickens)
>
> Any further comments?
> What do you think about Regex:: and regexEvaluater.pl?

That sounds great to me. I think. :-)

I have no problem with this but it was importand for me to make the different semantics clear so that the community can choose the best naming.
 

--
Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me.
Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.

Any further opinions (comments)????

Clemens

Reply via email to