Re: Package Proposal - DateRange and Range -

On 19 Aug 2003 at 15:10, Greg Beaver wrote: > 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. Hi Greg, the same here ... "Flash it a bit more" as Greg said *g* But I do believe it might be interesting in certain circumstances so it might be a good package either :-) Stefan > 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 >