Paul Johnson wrote:

Andrew Coppin wrote:

...

Well, no, because now I'm going to have to spend a few hours trying to find out what CIE is before I can even use that library.

I think really it's just aimed at a different problem. It looks like it's trying to specify actual real-world colours. [It's news to me that this isn't fundamentally impossible...] I'm only trying to specify colours on a computer screen. And as we all know, computer screens aren't calibrated in any way, and the same RGB value looks different on each display. But then, I'm only trying to write a fractal generator, so CIE specifications are somewhat overkill here. ;-) Your display may not be calibrated, but those used for graphic design certainly are.

Indeed. And if you're in any kind of position where you *care* about such things, you should be using color, not AC-Colour. If, however, you just want to throw together pretty pictures, AC-Colour is simpler and easier. Different libraries for slightly different tasks. ;-)

On the package naming front: I appreciate your wish to avoid just having another "colour" library. But "AC_Colour" doesn't help much. "Simple_colour" might be better.

Mmm, yeah. Naming everything with "AC" precludes name clashes and doesn't require too much thinking. Coming up with a better name requires thinking about what actually makes your package unique. And, of course, if another package comes along, that analysis may change. (E.g., I seem to recall there's a "newbinary" package which has actually been long since superceeded - so not so "new" any more!) If I name my package simple-colour, and then somebody else makes an even simpler one... the name becomes kind of meaningless. (Admitedly there's not too much danger of this happening...) I just like the idea of having definitely unique, distinctive package names. Otherwise I'd have to come up with stuff like geovector and trivicolour and so on... Arguably EasyRaster-GTK should have been a sufficiently unique name by itself though.