From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-07-13T17:27:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Module Naming Convention vs Java Namespaces


"David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407120825130.28500-100000@wobblini...
> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> >
> > "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407120755490.11648-100000@wobblini...
> > >
> > > I would emulate the built-in/standard library style as much as
> > > possible, i.e., no company names and a
General::Specific::MoreSpecific
> > > nest.
> > >
> > > If company names absolutely must enter into it, it would be better
to
> > > put them at the other end; I'd rather "require
> > > 'xml/parsers/AcmeXMLCo'" than 'AcmeXMLCo/xml/parser'.  The former is
> > > not ideal, but it's less disruptive and less ungainly than the
latter.
> >
> > But having the company name as prefix makes installation easier,
because
> > otherwise if your package consists of several modules you'll have to
> > manage several sub folders.
>
> Yes, but all for the common good.  I don't see the names of Matz's
> company, or those of other core developers, in the standard library.

Well, yes.  I should have said (as I did in IRC) that company names
probably do make sense only for company specific parts and not for general
purpose (which the std lib is of course).

Anyway, I don't have the need for a change here.  I like it the way it is.

Regards

    robert