At 23:54 07.09.2002, Randy Kobes wrote: >On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: >[ ... ] > > I just think of Util:: as the > > most appropriate name. I don't want us having an endless argument on this > > small naming issue. I'm open for suggestions if you have any other > > appropriate name for that category. > >Utilities? or Utils? That indicates one of many ... This is a >difficult category, as, in of itself, adding such a category to a >distribution with a single module doesn't really tell one more >about what the module does (to some degree, the same can be said >of an 'Application'-like category). It's almost like a >'Miscellaneous' category, in some sense; it indicates that the >module doesn't belong in any of the other categories.
Utils fits me. The category is clearly about some miscellaneous things, but it's for "Non-handler" modules, that just provide an API (and are not related to any of the other namespaces either). -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
