Re: guile-lib things

[Rob Browning]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> 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