Ah - so it’s about to be replaced, and there’s some sort of ‘beauty
parade’ under way between competing replacement designs?
Cheers,
Euan
xlucid@users(.remove this).sf.(antispam.)net
···
On 30 Oct 2002, at 11:20, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
And even if it is being rebuilt in a new way, why are we not
retaining the existing name?
After all, CPAN doesn’t change it’s name every year - and with
good reason. Continuity is important in the name for a language’s
central code repository.
We didn’t change the name of the central repository (RAA). During the
discussion about versions of RAA, we named each version different
name, just for convenience.
In this case? None of them, IMO. They would become, under Simon’s
scheme (and I mostly of agree with it), XML::Parser::REXML,
XML::Parser::NQXML, XML::Parser::libxml. What I’d like to see to
really make this work and be powerful is to slightly change how
“include”/“append_features” works, particularly from the perspective
of including into the top-level. What would be nice is the ability
to do:
include XML::Parser::REXML as XML::Parser
Allowing me, in my code, to alias REXML as XML::Parser.
I like that. (It presumes, though, that the APIs are the same.)
I was thinking about how namespaces and path names might be used to group
installed modules, such that an application could safely assume that all XML
parsers were installed under, say, site_dir/1.8/xml/parser/, and could then
decide what module to load based on what was found there.
James
···
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.10.29 at 22.29.21
In this case? None of them, IMO. They would become, under Simon’s
scheme (and I mostly of agree with it), XML::Parser::REXML,
XML::Parser::NQXML, XML::Parser::libxml. What I’d like to see to
In this case? None of them, IMO. They would become, under Simon’s
scheme (and I mostly of agree with it), XML::Parser::REXML,
XML::Parser::NQXML, XML::Parser::libxml. What I’d like to see to
really make this work and be powerful is to slightly change how
“include”/“append_features” works, particularly from the perspective
of including into the top-level. What would be nice is the ability
to do:
include XML::Parser::REXML as XML::Parser
Allowing me, in my code, to alias REXML as XML::Parser.
I like that. (It presumes, though, that the APIs are the same.)
Aliasing classes is as easy as constant definition, so why not have
libraries organized like
You’re right, but that reintroduces the normal namespace problem.
I’d still like to alias namespaces, although I’m not sure that it
would really work all that well (because of the way that namespaces
are actually modules).
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.10.30 at 09.46.37
···
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:25:35 +0900, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Ziegler wrote:
In this case? None of them, IMO. They would become, under Simon’s
scheme (and I mostly of agree with it), XML::Parser::REXML,
XML::Parser::NQXML, XML::Parser::libxml. What I’d like to see to
If them naming scheme is reversed,
You’re right, but that reintroduces the normal namespace problem.
I’d still like to alias namespaces, although I’m not sure that it
would really work all that well (because of the way that namespaces
are actually modules).
–
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu