RAA proposal

ruby-talk
1

Hello all,

Mark and I had a conversation on the categorization of RAA modules, and I
think we (well, actually Mark) came up with something good. I would also
like to present a proposal for a RAA interface. Both of these things are
demonstrated in the following website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

First of all, the top-level categories would be:

  1. Business
  2. Database
  3. Data Structures
  4. Science
  5. User Interface
  6. Networking & Web
  7. Development
  8. Text Processing (Language Processing?)
  9. Security
  10. Media

These categories seem to be complete, intuitive and yet not so many as to
clutter the page. A more complete description (including subcategories)
is included at the end of this message.

This is my idea for the navigation of the site (it’s best if you have the
mock up site in front of you as you read this):

A navigation bar on top with the main categories (Lib, App, etc). Each
with subcategories (Lib/Networking, etc).

Each of the main categories has a “home page”. My mock up depics the
home page of “Library”. The home page only shows the subcategories.

Selecting a category would produce pages similar to the current ones in
RAA, except that the navigation bar would stay. Clicking on "Library"
would take you to the Library home page.

“Recent Updates” is now a right-bar. It is still very visible, but it
no longer inhibits the visibility of the main categories.

Here is the more complete set of categories (Mark, tell me if I got
something wrong):

  1. Business
    e-commerce
    finance

  2. Data Structures
    Algorithm
    Array
    Binary
    Enumerable
    Graph
    Hash
    Queue
    Stack
    Time
    Tree

  3. Database
    MySQL
    Postgresql

  4. Development Support
    Benchmark
    CVS
    Compression
    Debugging
    Design Patterns
    Integrated Development Environment
    Internationalization
    I18N
    Operating System Interfaces
    Be
    BSD
    Dos
    Linux
    Mac
    Solaris
    Windows
    Testing

  5. Media
    Audio
    Graphics
    Icons
    MIDI
    Mp3
    Speech

  6. Networking & Web
    Distributed Computing
    Mail and Usenet News
    World Wide Web
    CGI
    Jabber

  7. Science
    Biology
    Math
    Computer Science
    AI
    Languages
    C
    Forth
    Lisp
    Lua
    Python
    Physics
    Chemistry

  8. Security
    Cryptography

  9. Text Processing
    PDF
    regular expressions
    yaml

  10. User Interfaces
    Fox
    Gtk
    Qt
    Text (curses, etc.?)
    Tk
    Wx
    X Windows

Cheers,

···

–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137

2

Hello all,

Mark and I had a conversation on the categorization of RAA modules, and I
think we (well, actually Mark) came up with something good. I would also
like to present a proposal for a RAA interface. Both of these things are
demonstrated in the following website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

First of all, the top-level categories would be:

  1. Business
  2. Database
  3. Data Structures
  4. Science
  5. User Interface
  6. Networking & Web
  7. Development
  8. Text Processing (Language Processing?)
  9. Security
  10. Media

These categories seem to be complete, intuitive and yet not so many as to
clutter the page. A more complete description (including subcategories)
is included at the end of this message.

Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come
up with a comprehensive top level list. Below is a trimmed list
of the the top level of the bsd ports:

biology ftp mbone shells
cad games misc sysutils
multimedia textproc comms graphics
net converters news
databases palm www deskutils
irc x11 Templates
x11 Tools archivers editors
print astro emulators lang
audio finance mail science
benchmarks math security

Some of these you mention. Others, I think some could be added
to your list above.

···

On Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 10:48:02 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:

Here is the more complete set of categories (Mark, tell me if I got
something wrong):

  1. Business
    e-commerce
    finance

  2. Data Structures
    Algorithm
    Array
    Binary
    Enumerable
    Graph
    Hash
    Queue
    Stack
    Time
    Tree

  3. Database
    MySQL
    Postgresql

  4. Development Support
    Benchmark
    CVS
    Compression
    Debugging
    Design Patterns
    Integrated Development Environment
    Internationalization
    I18N
    Operating System Interfaces
    Be
    BSD
    Dos
    Linux
    Mac
    Solaris
    Windows
    Testing

  5. Media
    Audio
    Graphics
    Icons
    MIDI
    Mp3
    Speech

  6. Networking & Web
    Distributed Computing
    Mail and Usenet News
    World Wide Web
    CGI
    Jabber

  7. Science
    Biology
    Math
    Computer Science
    AI
    Languages
    C
    Forth
    Lisp
    Lua
    Python
    Physics
    Chemistry

  8. Security
    Cryptography

  9. Text Processing
    PDF
    regular expressions
    yaml

  10. User Interfaces
    Fox
    Gtk
    Qt
    Text (curses, etc.?)
    Tk
    Wx
    X Windows

–
Jim Freeze

Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity.
– Robert Firth

3

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

Nice! Beautiful icons too.

First of all, the top-level categories would be:

  1. Business
  2. Database
  3. Data Structures
  4. Science
  5. User Interface
  6. Networking & Web
  7. Development
  8. Text Processing (Language Processing?)

By Language Processing I take it you mean the stuff that Perl/CPAN
categorises under Lingua::?

  1. Security
  2. Media

And I agree with whoever said that ‘Game Development’ ought to be a
toplevel category.

martin

···

Daniel Carrera dcarrera@math.umd.edu wrote:

4

Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come
up with a comprehensive top level list.

Sure we can. The Perl guys do, other projects do, why can’t we?
We just need generic top-level categories. Perhaps add a “Misc” category
for stuff that truly doesn’t fit anywhere.

Below is a trimmed list
of the the top level of the bsd ports:

biology ftp mbone shells
cad games misc sysutils
multimedia textproc comms graphics
net converters news
databases palm www deskutils
irc x11 Templates
x11 Tools archivers editors
print astro emulators lang
audio finance mail science
benchmarks math security

But all the libraries here can be put into the categories above. Below
I have put all of these in the categories above. The only items that I
didn’t fit into those categories are:

  • Things that are apps, not libs :
    games, emulators, sysutils, deskutils, editors

  • Things I don’t understand: converters, mbone

  • Misc.

Naturally, the Apps section will have its own categories.

Each element from the list above is denoted with a <–.

Business
Finance ←

Security ←

Science ←
Astro ←
Biology ←
Computer Science
Cad ←
Math

Media
Multimedia ←
Audio ←
Graphics ←

Networking
Net ←
IRC ←
FTP ←
News ←
WWW ←
Mail ←

Databases ←

User Interfaces
X11 ←
Print ←
Shells ←

Development
Benchmarks ←
Comms ←
Palm ←
Tools ←
Templates ←
Archivers ←

Text Processing ←
Lang

···

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:28AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:

Some of these you mention. Others, I think some could be added
to your list above.

Here is the more complete set of categories (Mark, tell me if I got
something wrong):

  1. Business
    e-commerce
    finance

  2. Data Structures
    Algorithm
    Array
    Binary
    Enumerable
    Graph
    Hash
    Queue
    Stack
    Time
    Tree

  3. Database
    MySQL
    Postgresql

  4. Development Support
    Benchmark
    CVS
    Compression
    Debugging
    Design Patterns
    Integrated Development Environment
    Internationalization
    I18N
    Operating System Interfaces
    Be
    BSD
    Dos
    Linux
    Mac
    Solaris
    Windows
    Testing

  5. Media
    Audio
    Graphics
    Icons
    MIDI
    Mp3
    Speech

  6. Networking & Web
    Distributed Computing
    Mail and Usenet News
    World Wide Web
    CGI
    Jabber

  7. Science
    Biology
    Math
    Computer Science
    AI
    Languages
    C
    Forth
    Lisp
    Lua
    Python
    Physics
    Chemistry

  8. Security
    Cryptography

  9. Text Processing
    PDF
    regular expressions
    yaml

  10. User Interfaces
    Fox
    Gtk
    Qt
    Text (curses, etc.?)
    Tk
    Wx
    X Windows

–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137

5

Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come
up with a comprehensive top level list.

Sure we can. The Perl guys do, other projects do, why can’t we?
We just need generic top-level categories. Perhaps add a “Misc” category
for stuff that truly doesn’t fit anywhere.

Well, I am not too quick on my feet when it comes to generating
lists like this, but I must say that it looks like you have a
good start.

But all the libraries here can be put into the categories above. Below
I have put all of these in the categories above. The only items that I
didn’t fit into those categories are:

  • Things that are apps, not libs :
    games, emulators, sysutils, deskutils, editors

So are you suggesting there are no game libraries.
Where would you put an RPG engine?

  • Things I don’t understand: converters, mbone

Ahh yes, I think mbone is a sound library.

  • Misc.

Naturally, the Apps section will have its own categories.

Each element from the list above is denoted with a <–.

Business
Finance ←

Security ←

Science ←
Astro ←
Biology ←
Computer Science
Cad ← 

          Hmm, intresting place to put CAD...

Math

Media
Multimedia ←
Audio ←
Graphics ←
Is this causing too many layers? Should
graphics be a top level?

Networking
Net ←
IRC ←
FTP ←
News ←
WWW ←
Mail ←

Databases ←

User Interfaces
X11 ←
Print ←
Shells ←
Can items be double listed? E.G, shells under
languages and interfaces?

···

On Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 11:17:12 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:28AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:

Development
Benchmarks ←
Comms ←
Palm ←
Tools ←
Templates ←
Archivers ←

Text Processing ←
Lang

–
Jim Freeze

If you’re not very clever you should be conciliatory.
– Benjamin Disraeli

6

I’ve been watching the various discussions about RAA stuff, and I keep
wondering to myself, “why does it have to be ‘like Perl’?” I understand
the desire to get programmers—and since Ruby was written as a
successor to Perl, the pool of Perl programmers seems like the natural
source.

I must ask, though, why copy what Perl has and does? What makes Ruby
superior to Perl are the things unlike Perl. The holdovers are being
discouraged (punctuation variables and the like). So why blindly copy
what Perl has in an effort to appease a group who may not be happy no
matter what you do? You can make Ruby and its community more and more
like Perl until it’s equivalent to Perl, but then it’s not Ruby
anymore—and probably no one will be happy.

Now, I understand the sentiment about making the RAA a bit more visible
in an effort to promote the capabilities of the language, and grow from
there. But most of the categorization I’ve seen hasn’t been very
Ruby-like.

Ruby is all about writing classes and using objects. Therefore,
the proposed application-oriented categorization strikes me as
illogical. Shouldn’t any categorization instead be focused around
classes? Instead of, for instance, “Multimedia”, “Audio”, and
“Graphics”; would it not be better to have “Image”, “Video”,
“Audio::Digital”, “Audio::MIDI”, and the like? Work on providing
classes for covering all functionality, in a uniform manner, instead of
a smattering of uncoordinated efforts.

When it comes to names, lots of things are available (assume .com,
.net, or .org)…“ruby-aa”, “rubyclass”, “rubylib”, “rubytome”, etc.

Anyway, just my 0b11.

···

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:17:12 +0900 Daniel Carrera dcarrera@math.umd.edu wrote:

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:28AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:

Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come
up with a comprehensive top level list.

Sure we can. The Perl guys do, other projects do, why can’t we?
We just need generic top-level categories. Perhaps add a “Misc”
category for stuff that truly doesn’t fit anywhere.

–
Ryan Pavlik rpav@users.sf.net

“What part of this whole villain thing do you not
understand?”
7

So are you suggesting there are no game libraries.
Where would you put an RPG engine?

HHmmm… perhaps media. SDL (Simple Direct Media Layer) would go under
media too.

Computer Science
Cad ← 

          Hmm, intresting place to put CAD...

Well. In retrospect, yeah, it doesn’t fit there.
Someone else can pick another spot. I certainly don’t think that CAD
should be toplevel.

Media
Multimedia ←
Audio ←
Graphics ←
Is this causing too many layers? Should
graphics be a top level?

I think we should keep the number of top layers to a minimum. I’ve seen
Graphics under “Media” lots of times. I think it fits well there.

User Interfaces
X11 ←
Print ←
Shells ←
Can items be double listed? E.G, shells under
languages and interfaces?

I think we should allow that.

Take a look at the mock-up website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

I think it really illustrates why minimizing top-level categories is a
good user interface decision.

···

–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137

8

Excuse me. Trying to make RAA easier to navigate is not copying Perl.

Please look at the mock-up website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

It does not look like cpan.org. The categories are not the same, and
the interface is not the same.

The only reference to Perl in this thread was in my claiming that it’s
possible to define a set of top-level categories. I just said that since
other projects do it, it must be possible.

Now, I understand the sentiment about making the RAA a bit more visible
in an effort to promote the capabilities of the language,

The “sentiment” is to make it easier for people to find what they need.

Shouldn’t any categorization instead be focused around classes?
Instead of, for instance, “Multimedia”, “Audio”, and
“Graphics”; would it not be better to have “Image”, “Video”,
“Audio::Digital”, “Audio::MIDI”, and the like?

How are your categories significantly different from the ones I wrote?
I just groupped them under “Multimedia” in order to have fewer top-level
categories. It’s a UI decision. We can’t make everything toplevel.

Work on providing classes for covering all functionality, in a uniform
manner, instead of a smattering of uncoordinated efforts.

You think that the proposed reorganization of RAA is “a smattering of
uncoordinated efforts”?

Better coordination is precisely what we are trying to attain.

···

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:12:39PM +0900, Ryan Pavlik wrote:

I’ve been watching the various discussions about RAA stuff, and I keep
wondering to myself, “why does it have to be ‘like Perl’?” I understand
the desire to get programmers—and since Ruby was written as a
successor to Perl, the pool of Perl programmers seems like the natural
source.

I must ask, though, why copy what Perl has and does? What makes Ruby
superior to Perl are the things unlike Perl. The holdovers are being
discouraged (punctuation variables and the like). So why blindly copy
what Perl has in an effort to appease a group who may not be happy no
matter what you do? You can make Ruby and its community more and more
like Perl until it’s equivalent to Perl, but then it’s not Ruby
anymore—and probably no one will be happy.

Now, I understand the sentiment about making the RAA a bit more visible
in an effort to promote the capabilities of the language, and grow from
there. But most of the categorization I’ve seen hasn’t been very
Ruby-like.

Ruby is all about writing classes and using objects. Therefore,
the proposed application-oriented categorization strikes me as
illogical. Shouldn’t any categorization instead be focused around
classes? Instead of, for instance, “Multimedia”, “Audio”, and
“Graphics”; would it not be better to have “Image”, “Video”,
“Audio::Digital”, “Audio::MIDI”, and the like? Work on providing
classes for covering all functionality, in a uniform manner, instead of
a smattering of uncoordinated efforts.

When it comes to names, lots of things are available (assume .com,
.net, or .org)…“ruby-aa”, “rubyclass”, “rubylib”, “rubytome”, etc.

Anyway, just my 0b11.

–
Ryan Pavlik rpav@users.sf.net

“What part of this whole villain thing do you not
understand?”

–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137

9

AGREED

i’ll take it a bit futher. Strive to do more, be more, and learn from others.

It would be quite something if the RAA could organize a giant hiearchy of
Class/Module structure for its libraries. (Applications are another matter).
throughout the hiearchy there would be points of install where the library
needs to be raainstall’d.

::TextProc
::Markup::
::YAML
::YAML4R <— install point

you can take this down to the nitty gritty (read ::load after YAML4R) and have
the RAA also serve as a reasonable source of documentation for everything!

now how do you get programmers to play nice? that’s another question.

···

On Saturday 25 January 2003 09:12 pm, Ryan Pavlik wrote:

I’ve been watching the various discussions about RAA stuff, and I keep
wondering to myself, “why does it have to be ‘like Perl’?” I understand
the desire to get programmers—and since Ruby was written as a
successor to Perl, the pool of Perl programmers seems like the natural
source.

I must ask, though, why copy what Perl has and does? What makes Ruby
superior to Perl are the things unlike Perl. The holdovers are being
discouraged (punctuation variables and the like). So why blindly copy
what Perl has in an effort to appease a group who may not be happy no
matter what you do? You can make Ruby and its community more and more
like Perl until it’s equivalent to Perl, but then it’s not Ruby
anymore—and probably no one will be happy.

Now, I understand the sentiment about making the RAA a bit more visible
in an effort to promote the capabilities of the language, and grow from
there. But most of the categorization I’ve seen hasn’t been very
Ruby-like.

Ruby is all about writing classes and using objects. Therefore,
the proposed application-oriented categorization strikes me as
illogical. Shouldn’t any categorization instead be focused around
classes? Instead of, for instance, “Multimedia”, “Audio”, and
“Graphics”; would it not be better to have “Image”, “Video”,
“Audio::Digital”, “Audio::MIDI”, and the like? Work on providing
classes for covering all functionality, in a uniform manner, instead of
a smattering of uncoordinated efforts.

–
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net

10

Ryan Pavlik wrote:

I must ask, though, why copy what Perl has and does? What makes Ruby
superior to Perl are the things unlike Perl.

that doesn’t mean all things perl are bad. what makes ruby fun and
approachable to many is that lots of cool things from perl are copied.
what makes ruby superior to perl are also things that ruby does like
perl, but better.

i’m not saying that we should copycat CPAN. but when people come to this
group from time to time asking about a CPAN-like beast, that ought to
make us think about what features CPAN has that RAA currently doesn’t.
and can we make a better cpan than CPAN (just like ruby is in many
aspects a better Perl than perl).

···

–
dave

11

Wow, nice mock-up. I like the icons.

···

On Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 12:27:21 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:

Take a look at the mock-up website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

–
Jim Freeze

This sentence contradicts itself – no actually it doesn’t.
– Hofstadter

12

its a nice mock-up. well done!

don’t take what Ryan said as a dis on what you’ve proposed. i think he only
means to take it even further, and not directly regarding your contribution
here. i beleive he refers to whole of the conversation in general. but i
guess i should not talk for him…

···

On Saturday 25 January 2003 09:38 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:

Excuse me. Trying to make RAA easier to navigate is not copying Perl.

Please look at the mock-up website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

–
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net

13

Hi –

···

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Tom Sawyer wrote:

::TextProc
::Markup::
::YAML

People might wonder about that when they find out what YAML stands
for :slight_smile:

David

–
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav

14

I’ve always liked how freshmeat allows projects to be described with
multiple topic tags. This approach helps to provide results with different
mental search patterns.

···

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:21PM +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:

So are you suggesting there are no game libraries.
Where would you put an RPG engine?

HHmmm… perhaps media. SDL (Simple Direct Media Layer) would go under
media too.

–
Alan Chen
Digikata Computing
http://digikata.com

15

i’m not saying that we should copycat CPAN. but when people come to
this group from time to time asking about a CPAN-like beast, that
ought to make us think about what features CPAN has that RAA currently
doesn’t. and can we make a better cpan than CPAN (just like ruby is in
many aspects a better Perl than perl).

I have to say that, for me as someone who remembers perl 4 and is just
starting Ruby, the big thing missing to make RAA an acceptable
alternative to CPAN is not a website, but the CPAN module. I NEVER use
the perl CPAN ftp-site/web-page - I always access it through the
module. If someone built something equivalent to CPAN.pm, hopefully
with a less kludgy interface, I think it would go a long way.

Also, a not on categories: when I use the CPAN shell, I don’t care
about categories, because my workflow is:

i /FTP/
… blah …
… blah …
readme DEC::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl
… blah …
… blah …
install Net::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl
… blah …

OOPS

install Dec::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl
… random compiler errors …
… random attempts to install the latest perl …
… random additional modules required …
force install Dec::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl
… blah …
… blah …
quit

The point is that I NEVER look at what category a module’s in because I
always use the search function. I suspect that most people do the same

  • CPAN’s just too big and has too much junk to use it otherwise.

If Ruby wants to build a better CPAN, I would suggest a few things:

1 - A better interface. The CPAN shell is kludgy at best.
2 - Better dependency handling and management. With a good interface, I
should be able to choose where to get the modules I need.
3 - Easy ways to get data into the directory.

I think that sourceforge might be a better model than CPAN - CPAN
followed the lead of CTAN, which was built in the days when FTP was
king. We have the ability, today, to build something more interesting,
more web-based, and more database-oriented. I think we should focus on
that rather than on category listings - especially since the categories
always seem to be more or less inappropriate anyway.

Patrick

···

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 02:37 AM, David Garamond wrote:

16

I agree with everything Daniel said :wink:

I think there are two levels to the discussion: (1) a usable interface
to the RAA and (2) namespacing for libraries and modules. While the
two are related, in that they involve categorization within an
identical subject matter domain, I think they should be treated as
though they were separate because they represent solutions to different
problems.

On the interface issue, a range of users with differing knowledge
levels about Ruby and other subjects are trying to find something
useful for their specific problem; this is clearly different than an
expert user managing namespaces. For user access, an information
hierarchy can be helpful. For namespaces, too much hierarchy is
probably unhelpful.

Having said that, the interface to the RAA should not violate
namespacing decisions – what this means to me is that, for example,
two modules under a science related namespace should not appear under
two separate categories (both should appear under science). As a
specific example, a genomics module and a genomics imaging module that
are both in a science namespace should both be under the science
category in the standard RAA interface.

Finally, RAA entries could have second (optional) category assignments
that would be used for display and sorting purposes so that a single
entry could appear under more than one category. I would prefer that
this be displayed only upon request of the user because I think a
standard “single inheritance” interface makes for greater usefulness.

17

funny example :wink:

···

On Saturday 25 January 2003 10:32 pm, dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:

Hi –

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Tom Sawyer wrote:

::TextProc
::
::Markup::
::YAML

People might wonder about that when they find out what YAML stands
for :slight_smile:

–
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net

18

I think that if multiple topic tags are used one topic tag should be
primary so that those who want to can have a view of the archive where
each entry is in only one place.

···

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 01:09 AM, Alan Chen wrote:

[snip]

I’ve always liked how freshmeat allows projects to be described with
multiple topic tags. This approach helps to provide results with
different
mental search patterns.
[snip]

19
> don't take what Ryan said as a dis on what you've proposed. i think he > only means to take it even further, and not directly regarding your > contribution here. i beleive he refers to whole of the conversation in > general. but i guess i should not talk for him...

I mean this indeed. The only reason I used Daniel’s message as a
starting point was the "everyone else does this so why don’t we"
statement, which seemed to echo a lot of what I’ve been reading here.
It’s not that making the RAA better is bad… just doing something
because everyone else is doing it is bad without considering why it’s
being done.

The RAA has a lot of potential, especially in light of Ruby’s
object-oriented nature, and merely mimicking others may lead to
something decent, but stepping back and considering how far and in
what direction the RAA could be taken would really further your cause
(which in this case, I believe, is attracting programmers).

···

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:44:18 +0900 Tom Sawyer transami@transami.net wrote:

–
Ryan Pavlik rpav@users.sf.net

“What part of this whole villain thing do you not
understand?”

20

You misread my statement.
It said “others do this, so it clearly it is possible”.
I was not suggesting that we mimic anyone. I was demonstrating the
feasibility of categorization on the basis that it has already been done.

···

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:31:22PM +0900, Ryan Pavlik wrote:

I mean this indeed. The only reason I used Daniel’s message as a
starting point was the “everyone else does this so why don’t we”
statement,

–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137