Trans
4/19/2007 8:54:00 PM
On Apr 19, 4:20 pm, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joy...@polytechnique.org>
wrote:
> > require 'traits', :project => 'codeforpeople', :package =>
> > 'traits', :version => '>= 0.10'
>
> I think this is over-engineering for a very marginal problem.
>
> If you have a 'heap' library, you usually don't want it to be top-level,
> because heaps are a general thing and it is very likely that you heap is
> not compatible with another's, so
> require 'heap', :project => 'coolproject'
> and
> require 'heap', :project => 'anothercoolproject'
> are NOT equivalent. For this kind of library, it is IMO not that horrible
> to have to type
> require 'coolproject/heap'
>
> If you're defining a big library, it can be put in the 'toplevel'
> namespace, because the first one that will use a name will own it.
>
> This works for a very long time in C (with both library names and
> includes). Of course, there are problems but I really think what you're
> trying to do is overkill for a very limited problem.
>
> I don't know what's your problem with more's libraries being in more. I
> personally don't see one.
That's not really the problem though. The problem I'm having is all
these libs are in one giant package right now. I want to be able to
offer them in some smaller pieces. Unfortunately this greatly effects
the dynamics of the requires and packaging. Does the remaining core
keep the old package name? Or does the project as whole retain that
name. That's the crux of my dilemma.
This discussion I started as an side though, just in thinking about
the issues in general.
T.