From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2003-01-27T09:48:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?

Tom Sawyer wrote:
> On Sunday 26 January 2003 04:55 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 
>>A complex graph is harder to browse than a tree.
> 
> 
> it would still be browsed just like a tree, only some packages would appear 
> under multiple nodes.

What about mimicking the ruby class/module structure. Every package 
belongs to a primary category (which may be a subcategory of a 
subcategory of a...) but also has a sequence of secondary 
classifications, like mixins.

So for instance if someone writes a web server that calculates trig 
functions and draws graphs, they might deicide it is primarily a web 
server, but "mixes in" the Math and Graph categories.

When I browse under web stuff, I see the package. When I browse under 
Graphs, or Math, the package is also listed, but perhaps not in the main 
section, but under "see also Web Stuff..."

Actually this is more like primary/seconday inheritance in Dylan than it 
  is like Ruby's inheritance, but maybe it still makes sense.