>Martin Stjernholm wrote:
>>"Stephen R. van den Berg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Most logical would be under a module named IO, so it would
>>> become IO.USB.devices and IO.OneWire.devices or somesuch.
>
>>IO sounds like a container module for all things i/o, but in reality
>>there's already a whole lot of i/o elsewhere (Stdio, Protocols, ...). Do
>>you have any coherent vision for what this new container would contain
>>and not contain?
>
>I considered adding it to Protocols. Then figured that Protocols mostly
>contains IP based protocols.
>
>Then I thought about what these things are about, and decided that the
>(in my mind) logical group I'm thinking about all has to do with
>*hardware* I/O.
Hmm... Maybe the top-level module should be named HW or Hardware then?
>So I'm currently implementing USB and OneWire, but I could imagine that
>other stuff that belongs in this category would be things like:
>I2C, SPI, 1-Wire, USB, JTAG, MIDI, PC keyboard, UART
>
>>(Personally I favor a very flat namespace - the top level is afterall
>>the most convenient one, so let's use it. ;) I've never understood the
>>benefit of Standards.pmod, in particular.)
>
>Well, I can understand both camps. Anyone else got opinions?
Well, I'd prefer not having them at the top-level since they're mostly
somewhat unlikely to be used by a random Pike program, and it makes
sense to group them together.
/grubba
