On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 09:14:24AM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 18:58 -0500 2000.09.08, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >I'm asking this question from you^Wus naming czars on behalf of Tom C.
> >As you (hopefully) noticed, Tom put out the combination of a rewrite
> >of the perldoc idea AND pmtools, alpha version, out for further field
> >testing. (see e.g. use.perl.org in case you missed the announcement).
> >Now, the namespaces of the modules. Currently Tom is using PM::Tools,
> >which may or may not be a good name, and Tom wants our help. Please
> >take a look at the thing and voice your opinions.
>
> I've been pondering this, and I think Pod::Tools would be a good place for
> the POD tools ... but then I couldn't think of a good place for PM and PPT.
> Yes, PPT and PM are confusing, but then again, we have precedent for what I
> think are far more confusing acronyms as top-level namespaces.
>
> Maybe there could be a Tools::Pod, Tools::PM, Tools::PPT. But what is a
> tool? What isn't a tool? I don't think the fact that there are combined
> modules and tools necessarily matters, except in the fact that you want to
> keep them together. For instance, if tcgrep were merely a module, you
> might put it in File::Grep or something.
>
> How about a Tom::Tools namespace? :-)
>
> You could do Module::Tools and Pod::Tools. Maybe PPT could be in
> Power::Tools, POSIX::Tools, Unix::Tools?
I think that each tool should be in a namespace appropriate to its
function. Then there could be a Bundle::PMTools and Bundle::PPT that
binds them all together.
Peace,
* Kurt Starsinic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -------- Senior Software Architect *
| `It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems |
| into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases |
| this is a bad idea.' - Ross Callon |
