Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

Greg Beaver wrote: >Aidan Lister wrote: > >> Are we going to underscore all good packages with PEAR_ then? >> >> Sorry, but I think this is highly stupid. > >What is your problem? This has nothing to do with other packages, and >the name has been set for months. The package is an error stack that >resides in PEAR and is a core component recommended for use by PEAR >packages, so it is called PEAR_ErrorStack. You want to change the name >because you think "PEAR_" will make people not want to use it. That is >indeed highly stupid. > >Offense intended when I say: if you were thinking rather than saying >ridiculous comments like the above, you'd see that the name is >descriptive, and the quality of the package is what matters most. > >If you have any similar "constructive" criticisms like this message, >please take them off-list until you have thought them through thorougly. > I'm always happy to address any criticisms of the code's content, or >design choices. Greg, don't be so mean with Aidan. I posted my other mails before reading yours. IMO, you should take these comments into consideration even if they look stupid for you at first glance. I think you have a lot to gain by simply going from PEAR_ErrorStack to Error_Stack or something like that. Personally, I'd more willing to use your package if it were renamed. Having PEAR_ in your package name usually means that the package extends PEAR. If that's not the case, it is misleading : why add this fake dependency to an otherwise useful and lightweight package. Again, this might look like marketing and communication, but I am sure this will help acceptance of your package among other developers. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam