Terrence Brannon wrote:
OK, Ill concede its a bit over-dramatic, but it is an unfortunate historical fact that cant be easily
corrected. Id hate to see the same mistake occur in every TLD.
Ditto on that. Although its convenient to make the namespaces short as in Geo and Astro, I think it is more confusing in the long run to not name them more descriptively like Geography, Geology, Geometry, Astrology, and Astronomy.
Ya, I always thought it weird what kind of stuff is strewn all over Geo::. Its really should be like schooling - you have different departments, Math, History, Geography, Archaeology, Biology, etc. So, that would mean geometry would be a subset of math, and would be Math::Geo:;, not plain old Geo::. Oh well.
Perhaps a whole new namespace for geography stuff. How about...
GIS::* (Bad idea, GIS is a subset of digitized geography) Geography::* Spatial::*
I think most naiive people (e.g. me!) would look under Geo or Geography for this type of thing, so put it there.
while Geography:: doesnt yet exist, it seems appropriate that it would. It might even result in a long-term migration.
Aran, assuming that you have some non-trivial knowledge, can you elaborate on what GIS is, what youd expect to find in Geography::GIS, and what youre looking to create in relation to it ?
Allright, well, Geography is a great namespace to start! I think it would be a good idea to plan out the namespace a little. I would like to propose coming up with a logical structure to the modules contained within Geography::. This would really just be a list of directories and module names and how they relate if at all. It would also describe justifications for choosing one name/structure over another. Then as module authors need geography functionality they can just write a module that fits in with the structure.
Of course plans never quite fit the bill in practice, so it would just be a guideline.
Comments, questions, moral support? I'd love to do this if its considered ok by the local gods.
Aran
