On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Ok, I acknowledge that. I think we seem to be gradually coming to a consensus on Marcin's point - that the functionality of a library should be paramount in the naming scheme, regardless of implementation, standardness, portability, etc. This is good.
Just to add my vote to the direction everything is going now: I am also in the opinion that the user's perspective should be of the primary consideration. Standardness, portability, quality are kind of extra scores, which could be stressed in a presentation layer of database of modules. For example, some kind of a standard color scheme could be used to quickly inform the user about those extra attributes of the module hierarchy. As I understand, the Std/ NonStd classification has been abandoned. That's good, because one does not need to move modules around when promoting them from the non-standard to the standard status; all one needs to do is to change the module attribute - not its position within the hierarchy. Readability of the module hierarchy is important too and I support the "no abbreviations" proposal, as voiced by Malcolm. Good job guys! Jan