From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig)
Date: 11/10/00 7:46:05 AM
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:28:02 +0000, Dave Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> > I've mailed this list a couple of times before about my
> > Sub::Approx module, but have had no response. We've had
> > a bit of discussion on hte subapprox mailing list and
> > have decided that we will rename the module to
> > Approx::Sub. This is because the we plan to work on
> > Approx::Array, Approx::Hash, etc (in fact one of the
> > list memebers already has a prototype of
> > Approx::Scalar).
>
> Just three days since the Sub:: namespace has been
> officially introduced:-/
Spectacularly bad timing on my part :(
Nonetheless, I still think that Approx::Sub is a better name
for it.
> Dave, in your first note
>
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules/2000-07/msg00222.html
>
> you say, this "is a completely stupid think" and now you
> decide to write separate modules for Subs, Scalars, Arrays
> and Hashes? I regret I didn't hear your talk, apparently
> I'm missing something.
Well, it's still a stupid thing, but one that a number of people
seem interested in extending.
> My thinking is (I wouldn't mind being correted here): if
> you have good approximate matching code, talk about its
> merits, compare it to others, like Match::Approx or IR
> techniques and make it a module or three, no? You instead
> say nothing about the matching code and create namespaces
> for each and every entity that can be matched
> approximately. This seems backwards to me. Feel free to
> just send me your talk if it answers my qualms.
Well, we don't actually have any cool matching code. We use Text::Soundex
by default, but the module can be configured to use Text::Metaphone,
String::Approx or any code provided by the user.
The cool stuff (well, what people tell me is cool) is simply
the way that I've sewn together a number of well understood technologies
(AUTOLOAD, typeglobs, Text::Soundex) to do something which is
a very good example of something that you couldn't do in many
other programming languages.
> > I've also abstracted the glob-walking ocde that is
> > fundamental to Approx::Sub into another module called
> > GlobWalker - this is also in my CPAN directory.
>
> Have you ever looked at Devel::Symdump? How does your
> GlobWalk differ?
Well having looked at Devel::Symdump, I see that they don't (except
for a potential bug in Devel::Symdump which I'll mail you about
separately). I'll switch to using Devel::Symdump and remove GlobWalker
from CPAN.
Hope this clears things up. If you'd rather it was called something
like Stupid::Approx::Sub, I'd be happy with that too.
Let me know if I can help any more.
Cheers,
Dave...
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>
"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one",
he said. But still they come.
