David Cantrell wrote:
"It's what everyone else does" *is* the principle of least surprise.
That's getting the cause and effect backwards. There's lots of fucked up
interfaces and user behaviors out there, just dig into Windows Linux GUI apps
for examples, and some of them exhibit astonishing
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 09:00:27AM -0700, Matisse Enzer wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2008, at 6:45 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:20:40PM -0700, Matisse Enzer wrote:
> >>What are other good reasons to have package declarations match file
> >>paths?
> >Because it's what everyone does
On Mar 15, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Because it's what everyone does and there are no good reasons to
*not* do it.
With all due respect David, I don't think that's a good answer
Well, it is a good point.
I don't know that "everyone else does it" is a "good point." The issue
# from Matisse Enzer
# on Saturday 15 March 2008 09:00:
>> Because it's what everyone does and there are no good reasons to
>> *not* do it.
>
>With all due respect David, I don't think that's a good answer
Well, it is a good point. Is anyone suggesting that the package name
shouldn't match the
On Mar 15, 2008, at 6:45 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:20:40PM -0700, Matisse Enzer wrote:
What are other good reasons to have package declarations match file
paths?
Because it's what everyone does and there are no good reasons to *not*
do it.
With all due respect
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:20:40PM -0700, Matisse Enzer wrote:
> What are other good reasons to have package declarations match file
> paths?
Because it's what everyone does and there are no good reasons to *not*
do it.
--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence
Godli
