On Tuesday 08 June 2004 16:39, David A. Black wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 June 2004 13:05, David A. Black wrote:
> > > Hi --
> > >
> > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > > > Probably wouldn't, but I just finished mine and it's released, and
> > > > it's in C. I don't know what to do about the name clash.  I can't
> > > > think of another name that works as well, and I have to move on to
> > > > some actual work here.
> > >
> > > It's hard to think of a name that works *less* well, since this one
> > > clashes with an already-available package.  I hope you'll consider
> > > renaming it, as a courtesy to Dan and to reduce confusion by potential
> > > users.
> >
> > I will when I have a suitable alternative.
>
> Since Interface is already the name of a Ruby library, pretty much any
> other word (as long as it doesn't similarly shadow an existing
> package) is automatically more suitable than Interface.
>
> "Interfaces" and "Interfacer" come to mind -- not plum names, perhaps,
> but (as far as I know) unambiguous and unclaimed in Ruby-space.

Asking Dan if we could perhaps merge the projects.

	Sean O'Dell