Re: Package Proposal - DateRange and Range -

I understand! Woohoo! Give me some time, and I'll work out some more code and comments as you have suggested and I'll get back to you in a week or so. Thanks kindly, Matt Friedman 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 - 19/08/2003 03:10 PM 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php