On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 01:13:18PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I want to do something with my flash file. I search for
> >'flash file'... Oh look, there's a flash file parser. Do I care
> >what it's
> >called? No. I concur that the module name is effectively
> >meaningless, but I
> >don't see that it makes any difference to the searcher.
>
> Nitpick: FLV is not Flash. FLV is a video format that is often used
> by Flash movies, but it is not Flash and does not work standalone
> without a Flash movie to control it. SWF is the file format for
> Flash movies.
>
*shrug* It had flash in the description. Take that up with
the author. :-)
<argument re: the importance of naming snipped>
> > I submit these long threads about which module name is better than
> >some other similar name are a waste of time, and I do indeed suggest
> >we take them off list as a general rule.
> >
>
> I strongly disagree. I think good naming is important for
> readability and maintainability. Like good variable and method
> names, module names should be self-documenting whenever feasible.
> Since module names are harder to change than variable or method
> names, I say a little forethought and discussion is justified.
>
Ok, you and a few other vocal people have very strong opinions
about this, which I don't begrudge you. Can we move the discussions to a
different list? If this were an occasional thing, I wouldn't ask. But it seems
like these discussions dominate the module authors list, and it would be nice
to be able to differentiate the module naming discussions from other technical
issues.
I would be happy to do the footwork of setting up a separate list
and submit changes to the existing documentation to point authors to
the new list when they are at the point of naming a module.
Austin
