From: ahoward <ahoward@...>
Date: 2003-01-23T15:43:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:

> >   * libraries wishing to become part of the ruby standard library should
> >     follow some sort of standards (naming being one of them) and perhaps fit
> >     into some overall package management system (like the cpan shell).  they
> >     should install in standard places, have standard docs (in fact it'd be
> >     great if there were a site_ruby/doc directory doccumenting every thing
> >     installed on your system), etc.
> >
> >   * other modules can do what they please
>
> The standard library is a different matter -- at least, that term is
> generally reserved for the stuff in the distribution itself.  RAA is
> all add-on -- the well-named stuff as well as the miscellany :-)

look at boost and you'll understand what i meant : the idea is that _very
good_ modules (like, say, amrita) are all _potential_ candidates for inclusion
into a standard library and thus should somehow be 'comformant'.  for an
example of how NOT to do this open up ten or so of the 'standard' modules
which ship with perl!  if the authors who write such good modules (rdoc,
amrita, testunit, etc) had a set of module standards to follow it would be
trival to incorporate them into the next release of ruby, and the cvs version
before that.

-a

-- 

 ====================================
 | Ara Howard
 | NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
 | Information and Technology Services
 | Data Systems Group
 | R/FST 325 Broadway
 | Boulder, CO 80305-3328
 | Email: ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov
 | Phone:  303-497-7238
 | Fax:    303-497-7259
 ====================================