On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 02:58:59PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: > Hello, this request for comment is in particular aimed at those of you who use > databases and/or DBI with Perl. > > Thanks to a topic covered in Piers Cawley's most recent Perl 6 Summary (generic > Parrot code generators), I think I have finally figured out what is the standard > industry terminology to describe and/or use to name a new module I am making: "AST" > or "Abstract Syntax Tree". > > P.S. Please CC your reply directly to my address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) in addition to > sending it to the discussion list. > > I am writing you today to get second opinions for proposed names on my new module, > which I would like to register as soon as possible. > > The current working title I have, which came out of a productive RFC I did on May > 29th, is "SQL::ObjectModel". I did submit that name on June 2nd to get registered; > it never got registered, but on the bright side it gave me time to come up with the > possibly better title. > > I propose something like "SQL::AST" or "SQL::AbstractSyntax" or > "SQL::AbstractSyntaxTree". I like the first one best, because it is short. Or > maybe "SQL::AS".
Short names are generally not good names. SQL::AbstractSyntaxTree sounds okay, as does SQL::ObjectModel. I think SQL::ObjectModel is a more "friendly" name. > On a related question, after I have finished the PurePerl implementation of this > module, I plan to make a C library implementation, and so what would be a good name > for that? In my experience, C libraries often have names like "libABC" (such as > libXML); might I be best to have a name like that, such as "libSQLAST". Or would > it sound better without that, such as "SQLAST"? As a counter example I offer Data::Dumper and DBI. Both come with C and pure-perl implementations that are selected automatically. Much simpler for the user. Tim.
