Re: Package Proposal - DateRange and Range -

Hi, Glad we cleared this up :). I definitely think that the package name should be Range, and so on. I've decided I would like to see either some more documentation or a few more Range implementations before giving a +1 to this package. Flesh it out a bit more, I'd like to see a few practical examples that programmers can use to fuel their imagination - as you envision the Range package should be used. It's good code, I have no problem with that, it just feels a bit barren, know what I mean? I can elaborate if this is unclear. Greg MFriedman@symcor.com wrote:

I had read somewhere on the Pear site that the directories in the Pear source tree, like Log or Auth were being referred to as "Categories" - but I must have misinterpreted something. To set thing straight, I was referring to code -- I meant "package" as in a `@package Range'. I apologize for the confusion, I'm new at contributing to Pear and did read over the instructions, but it's a learning experience for me. I'm still of the mind that Range and its sub-classes live in the same code directory; perhaps this is still a matter for discussion. As far as the documentation goes, I'd be happy with Range documentation living anywhere that makes sense such as an "Abstract Types" category. Although I think I might still be missing something; I don't see an "Abstract Types" category at the Pear documentation page; I'm guessing you were thinking of adding one for things like Range. Thanks again, Matt Friedman. Code can be reviewed here: http://www.daart.ca/php/range.php

                                                                                                                                                           Greg Beaver                                                                                                                           <greg@chiaraquart        To:       MFriedman@symcor.com                                                                               et.net>                  cc:       pear-dev@lists.php.net                                                                                                      Subject:  Re: [PEAR-DEV] Package Proposal - DateRange and Range - Range Category                             18/08/2003 10:45          Needed.                                                                                                     PM                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

For the record, are we talking about documentation category, or package name? I think Range is fine for a package name. For documentation category, I don't think Range is a good name. Categories don't always reflect types. "PEAR" is not a type, and "Logging" is also not a type. Category names like "Streams" are also there, but also "Tools and Utilities." I only suggest Abstract Types because this is the first place I would look for something like range. You can put Range in the Abstract Types category, and still implement the package Range with factory method as you described. This is my personal opinion. It also may change over the next couple of days. Again, I am not giving +1 or -1 until I've at least slept on the question, especially after recent debate over package review :). Regards, Greg -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php