On Dec 20, 7:54 am, "Robert Dober" <robert.do... / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 1:24 PM, Trans <transf... / gmail.com> wrote:> Do you think Ruby's standard library would be better if it was
> > organized more categorically? Might it, in turn, encourage 3rd party
> > library developers to categorize their libraries better as well? AFAIK
> > net/ is the only categorized set of libs in the standard lib and
> > Austin is one of the very few who religiously organizes his libraries
> > in this manner.
>
> > Is categorization a good idea, or a waste of time?
>
> A good idea I believe, but only if it comes naturally. I have no idea
> if categories could be applied already, maybe the SL is just not big
> enough right now...
> I believe that it might indeed be a nice thing for 3rd party
> developers to have entry points into a tree.
> I imagine things like
> require "extensions/facets...."
> or
> require "text/ruport"
> or
> require "crazy/labrador/" ;)
>
> maybe one could peek over to Python or Perl and steal some ideas ;).

I see it the other way around:

  require "facets/extensions/...."
  require "ruport/text/..."
  require "labrador/crazy/..."

Whereby the first name represents a project/package and the rest
indicates the categories. Ruby itself has no sub-namespace, of course.
That stands to reason as it is all "toplevel". What would be
interesting then is to be able to "include" a namespace. Ie. Something
like...

  use "ruport"

then

  requre 'text/...'

But that's not really the main point. Just wondering about
categorization in general. Unlike the Perl, where CSPAN provides the
incentive to do so, the Ruby community doesn't seem to do much at all
--and really there seems to be no standard ideas to speak of on the
matter. For example, I recently talked to a maintainer of the Text
project about perhaps a merger with my English project. His response
was that he felt certain libs belonged to the Text namespace and
others to the English namespace. But that's misconstrued IMO. I've
never thought of English as anything more than a project name. By
Tim's reasoning it would mean he has taken ownership of the entire
Text category. Which is clearly silly. So that's why I think
"{package}/{catagory}/..." makes sense.

T.