In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Kogai) wrote:

>   Anyway, since then my policy to upload a module is as follow;
> 
> 0)  Make sure it does not exist yet.
> 1)  Upload and see what happens.

Well, I am a member of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] cabal; the general practice 
is that if something is OK, we don't necessarily respond.  If no one 
responds after a week or so, you're probably fine.  But that doesn't 
mean you shouldn't ask first.  I don't necessarily think that your name 
is wrong, but I do think you should post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] first for 
such things as new top-level namespaces.  Maybe Mac::X would be better, 
I dunno.  That's why it is discussed first.  :)


>   So far so good.  But of course, I am open to opinions.  If enough number
> of you (well, even I am not sure how many would be enough.  Say if my
> mailbox gets flooded with complaints) don't like it I am happy to change
> that.
>   As for the toplevel 'MacOSX',  I first considered 'Darwin' but Dawin's own
> /bin/cp and /bin/mv ignore Resource fork.  Then I considered 'Carbon' but
> What actually my module does is to bridge both worlds.  So I picked MacOSX,
> the name that contains both worlds.

My problem is that I think this module should have the same interface as 
Mac::Files and should be called Mac::Files and then programmers on both 
platforms can "use Mac::Files" and just have it work.

Well, OK, maybe not.  But I do want *A* module called "Mac::Files" on 
Mac OS X that has the same interface as Mac::Files on Mac OS, though, 
and what I don't want is for there to be confusion in the long run as to 
what these modules should and shouldn't do ...

What I really should do is just port the Mac:: modules, but I don't have 
the time to do that work.  :/

-- 
Chris Nandor                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    [EMAIL PROTECTED]     http://osdn.com/

Reply via email to