On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:16:29 +0900, Jim Menard wrote:
> Simon Cozens <simon / ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>" JamesBritt" <james / jamesbritt.com> writes:
>>> That's what popped into my mind, too. A definitive name is great
>>> if there is but one definitive module.
>> But as I mentioned, if there's a definitive name, you have to
>> think more carefully about why you're writing a different module,
>> and your name should reflect what's distinctive about it.
>> Consider HTML::Parser, HTML::TokeParser and HTML::TreeBuilder.
>> You can easily tell that they're all HTML parsing libraries but
>> they have distinctive styles.
> Then what would you call NQXML, REXML, and expat? Each is an XML
> parser. Each supplies a SAX-like and DOM-like parser (I think).
> Sure, they have different features and different implementations.
> They're essentially the same thing at the core, though.
> 
> Which one gets the name XML::Parser?

In this case? None of them, IMO. They would become, under Simon's
scheme (and I mostly of agree with it), XML::Parser::REXML,
XML::Parser::NQXML, XML::Parser::libxml. What I'd like to see to
really make this work and be powerful is to slightly change how
"include"/"append_features" works, particularly from the perspective
of including into the top-level. What would be nice is the ability
to do:

    include XML::Parser::REXML as XML::Parser

Allowing me, in my code, to alias REXML as XML::Parser.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin / halostatue.ca on 2002.10.29 at 22.29.21