Process issues (was Re: Lang)

Jan Skibinski
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:04:57 -0500 (EST)

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!