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
