From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: linas@linas.org (Linas Vepstas) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: guile-lib things Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:43:07 -0500 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20040627214307.GT3998@backlot.linas.org> References: <1088100238.1855.207.camel@localhost> <87isdfpjzy.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1088372615 25489 80.91.224.253 (27 Jun 2004 21:43:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-lib-dev@gnu.org, Guile Users Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 27 23:43:28 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BehQu-0004NI-00 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:43:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BehST-0002Vx-Vm for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:45:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BehSQ-0002Vs-Ha for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BehSO-0002Vg-W7 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BehSO-0002Vd-SE for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:45:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [67.100.217.179] (helo=backlot.linas.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BehQZ-00017D-NC for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:43:07 -0400 Original-Received: by backlot.linas.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 37C571BE6E; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:43:07 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Rob Browning Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87isdfpjzy.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:3287 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:3287 On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:31:29PM -0500, Rob Browning was heard to remark: > Andy Wingo writes: > > > [0] At one point, I wanted strictly taxonomic names for the > > modules. I was wrong: code doesn't behave taxonomically, it behaves > > in a certain quirky way depending on who wrote it / what package it > > comes from. So while you might classify _packages_ a certain way, > > the code often deserves to be classified under the package name > > itself. I'm thinking of (sxml htmlprag) here. > > That said, I tend to prefer flatter namespaces for modules when > there's a choice. For example, modules like (text regexp pcre), (db > relational sql postgresql), or even (graphics opengl) seem > unnecessary and even potentially confusing to me. Yes! Deep taxonomies also hinder authors who are working on new stuff, which tends to cross boundaries: if it could be easily classified, it would be a whole lot more boring, and maybe not worth doing .... For example, suppose you had to classify a blog tool, say 5 years ago. What category would you have put it then? Is slashdot a blog or a news agregator? Who knows? --linas -- pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933 _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user