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/