On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:39:48 -0700, Xiong Changnian wrote: > Please allow me to stress my regret at disturbing your peace by > writing in a mode you find offensive. The more I seek to avoid > offense, the more offensive I become. I lament my inability to > express courtesy in a form you might find fair. I refrain from > further participation in this list. If anyone should require > anything from me, for any reason, please email me directly. I shall > be grateful to be your most obliging servant.
While your style of writing may indeed be excessively formal or flowery, as exemplified by the above, I think you deserve just as much apology from those members of the list who have chosen to respond in such an insulting manner. Yes, you would do well to write more concisely, but you don't warrant the lambasting you have received. Nadim <na...@khemir.net> wrote: > It may sound strange but if you [can't] get the humor and > sensibility the Perl comunity has, it may be better to find another > one. This is not just Software. It is social, living, fun. Just how much humour and sensibility have you shown here, Nadim? You're not sounding particularly social or fun. Now, back to topic: Yes, it is certainly an enormous pain to have to rename modules once they have been released to CPAN. However, starting with a generic placeholder name allows you write some code and get a feel for how it actually works, which may in turn inspire a good name. If nothing else, it should give a much clearer impression of what the module does and how, than a long-winded description, no matter how well written. This is what you should be bringing to the modules list. It will still likely be inconvenient to rename at this stage, but not as difficult as you seem to have found. Maybe if you explain what problems you had with previous renames, we could give some useful advice about that. -- Peter Haworth | I unicycled 140 miles coast to coast for BHF p...@edison.ioppublishing.com | Please sponsor me at justgiving.com/pmh1wheel "The usability of a computer language is inversely proportional to the number of theoretical axes the language designer tries to grind." -- Larry Wall This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it. Any views expressed are the author's and do not represent those of IOP, except where specifically stated. IOP takes reasonable precautions to protect against viruses but accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from virus infection. For the protection of IOP's systems and staff emails are scanned automatically.” Institute of Physics Registered in England under Registration No 293851 Registered Office: 76/78 Portland Place, London W1B 1NT