On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 08:46:25AM -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Hugh S. Myers wrote: > > > Clever of you to miss the point entirely. That being to put it in the > > GetOpt namespace---the rest is up to the author... > > Clever of you to miss that I did get your point entirely. :) I agreed > with you which is why I made my example in the GetOpt space. I read an > article recently talking about not using strange acronyms in module names > and that's why I commented. I responded to your e-mail since I was trying > to build on what you had correctly pointed out! Sorry for not making that > clearer. > > "RSE" just makes me think of some strange IBM acronym. VERA gives us > "Removable Storage Elements" and "Research and Systems Engineering" as > previous uses for RSE. Who could guess the difference between GetOpt::RSE > and GetOpt::JCL?
Okay, points on both parts of the names well recieved. I thought of 'Exec' because, in my mind, the module goes beyond Getopt, but on review, it's not *that* far beyond, and it's probably better to stick with an existing namespace anyway. Again, the point about the acronym makes sense. I am, of course, too close to the trees. StdResource feels a little over-general, but I lack a better idea, so... Cheers for the ideas, Mx.
