Also sprach _brian_d_foy:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Timm Murray
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 04:22, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:49:52PM -0500, _brian_d_foy wrote:
>
>> > > Does anyone have an objection to a new top-level namespace? Blog seems
>> > > similar and has its own namespace.
>
>> > I'd be happy to see Freenet::*
>
>> I'll take that, but I'm not sure further polution of the root space is
>> warrented.
>
> do you have other ideas where it might fit?
I think a new top-level namespace would be justified. Especially when
you implement something networkish that is not exactly a protocol but
doesn't fit into HTTP::* or WWW::* either, you are in quite a miserable
state. Why not introducing Netx:: just as DBIx:: has been introduced to
keep DBI:: uncluttered?
Tassilo
--
$_=q!",}])(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus;})(rekcah{lrePbus;})(lreP{rehtonabus;})(rehtona{tsuJbus!;
$_=reverse;s/sub/(reverse"bus").chr(32)/xge;tr~\n~~d;eval;
