unofficial mirror of guile-user@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Cc: Guile Users <guile-user@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: guile-lib things
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:31:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87isdfpjzy.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1088100238.1855.207.camel@localhost> (Andy Wingo's message of "Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:03:59 +0100")

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> 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.

Also, paraphrased from a message I sent recently:

  All of this definitely goes in the FWIW category, and also note also
  that I'm not describing a firm conviction here so much as a general
  inclination.

  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.

  It appears easy to get in situations where the classifications are
  multi-dimensional and the choice to put a particular module in a
  given place is just arbitrary.  For example, instead of the above,
  why not just (pcre), (opengl), and (postgresql)?  I might even
  prefer (goops) to the current (oop goops) since the oop doesn't
  really seem to add anything.

  Note that I'm not arguing for a completely flat namespace, just
  expressing a general uneasiness with the "deep generic taxonomy"
  approach I've seen in other languages.

  FWIW, and thanks.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-06-25 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-06-24 18:03 guile-lib things Andy Wingo
2004-06-25 11:48 ` Andy Wingo
2004-06-25 18:31 ` Rob Browning [this message]
2004-06-27 21:43   ` Linas Vepstas
2004-06-29 17:43     ` Andy Wingo
2004-06-30 22:20       ` Rob Browning
2004-07-08 19:01         ` Andy Wingo
2004-07-03 16:48       ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2004-07-10  4:44         ` Linas Vepstas
2004-06-27  1:22 ` ASDF for guile (Was Re: guile-lib things) Chris Hall
2004-06-28 13:33   ` Matthew Trout
2004-06-28 13:48   ` Andy Wingo
2004-07-01 21:42 ` guile-lib things Neil Jerram
2004-07-08 19:09   ` Andy Wingo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87isdfpjzy.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org \
    --to=rlb@defaultvalue.org \
    --cc=guile-user@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).