Orton, Yves writes: > > Thus, having some math background one would identify > > Math::Interval::Arithmetic (or maybe more proper, > > Math::IntervalArithmetic) at a glance in a search for "interval". > > Imo the former form should be heavily preferred over the latter. > > Math::Interval > > admits the possibility that there could be a wide range of modules related > to intervals. > > Math::IntervalArithmetic > > Does not.
I completely agree with you if all of these (perhaps theoretical) modules _are_ related to intervals, and "intervals" in the same sense of the word as each other. But if these modules are actually dealing with different concepts (I've only been skimming this thread -- I'm not really mathsy enough to understand it -- but I think that might be the case) that only co-incidentally share a name then actually there's nothing to be gained in grouping them together. Actually, quite the reverse: there's benefit in splitting them by name into their 2 concepts. So having Math::FooInterval and Math::BarInterval as name-spaces would work for me, for suitable values of "Foo" and "Bar" which help to disambiguate the words. But similarly, if one of the meanings of "interval" is in more common use such that it's the concept mathematicians tend to refer to by that name without any disambiguating adjectives then it also makes sense to have Math::Interval for that concept and Math::FooInterval (or Math::InvervalFoo) for t'other one. So I think Math::Interval::Arithmetic or Math::IntervalArithmetic could be better, depending on whether it's dealing with arithmetic on the same concept as Math::Interval deals with, or whether it's a different concept entirely. > Not only that but CamelHump identifiers are considered to bad style in > the eyes of much of the community. It is harder for a coder to enter style-heaven than it is to fit a CamelHump through the eye of the community? Smylers
