gobo-eiffel-develop

[gobo-eiffel-develop] Class name prefixes

[Eric B. <er...@go...>]

Berend,

> Is the two letter prefix already decided? Have I missed that part? I
> also send a msg to Eric that POSIX had a few other prefixes, and two
> letters is quite short.

Here is what I suggested when you raised the problem of POSIX
having several prefixes.

-- 
Eric Bezault
mailto:er...@go...
http://www.gobosoft.com

Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Class name prefixes

[Christian C. <chc...@cl...>]

Eric Bezault wrote :
> 
> 
> > 5. The name: I think the Gobo name is quite usefull as it is
> >    well-known. But what about a somewhat more catchy name like Unified
> >    Gobo? "The Unified Open Source Eiffel Library" is to formal, but
> >    Unified Gobo sounds as somewhat more important for this large
> >    undertaking.
> >    But I'm also just fine with Gobo.
> 
> I would say the shorter the better. For example the full
> name is actually Gobo Eiffel, but everybody just calls it
> Gobo because it's shorter. So I would rather stick to
> Gobo as a name, even if the documentation will clearly
> state that it's a multi-developer multi-library project.

How about acronyms ?
We could call it the GE for Gobo Environment or GEE for Gobo Eiffel
Environment or even GEEK for Gobo Eiffel Environment Kernel :-)

Regards,
Christian.

Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Class name prefixes

[Andreas L. <no...@sb...>]

On 29 May 2001 06:43:57 +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> Eric Bezault wrote :
> > 
> > 
> > > 5. The name: I think the Gobo name is quite usefull as it is
> > >    well-known. But what about a somewhat more catchy name like Unified
> > >    Gobo? "The Unified Open Source Eiffel Library" is to formal, but
> > >    Unified Gobo sounds as somewhat more important for this large
> > >    undertaking.
> > >    But I'm also just fine with Gobo.
> > 
> > I would say the shorter the better. For example the full
> > name is actually Gobo Eiffel, but everybody just calls it
> > Gobo because it's shorter. So I would rather stick to
> > Gobo as a name, even if the documentation will clearly
> > state that it's a multi-developer multi-library project.
> 
> How about acronyms ?
> We could call it the GE for Gobo Environment or GEE for Gobo Eiffel
> Environment or even GEEK for Gobo Eiffel Environment Kernel :-)

I am not for a renaming. Let's get things done that help develop Eiffel
applications, not waste our time on renaming classes.


regards,
Andreas

Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Class name prefixes

[Berend de B. <be...@po...>]

Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:

> Yes, I thought about that two days ago as well. What about
> possibly allowing several prefixes for some libraries. It
> is actually already the case for the Lexical library with
> LX_ and YY_ (for skeleton classes) and for the Parse library
> with PR_ and YY_ (again for skeleton classes). And if we
> integrate the Unicode cluster into the Kernel library we
> would also have KL_ and UC_ for this library. So provided
> that these prefixes are well documented (i.e. have a page
> listing all the libraries with their prefixes used) so that
> we can avoid clashes, I don't think that there is any problem.
> So what about SC_, PX_, SU_, etc. for the different layers?
> Of course you (and any other developer) are free to choose
> the prefixes you want provided that there are not used yet.

Two questions:

1. Are two letter prefixes not too short?

2. What if I specify PX_STANDARDC_TEXT_FILE and PX_POSIX_DIRECTORY?
   What do you think about this?

Groetjes,

Berend. (-:

Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Class name prefixes

[Eric B. <er...@go...>]

Berend de Boer wrote:
> 
> 1. Are two letter prefixes not too short?

As you might know by now, I'm for consistency.
I would be OK to use three-letter prefixes, but there are already
some other (commercial) libraries using three-letter prefixes and
it may lead to name clashes, and this is exactly what prefixes
try to avoid.

Futhermore I don't really see prefixes as being part of the
name fo the class, but rather as a (library) code to prevent
name clashes between libraries. Having long library codes
(i.e. prefixes) would end up polluting the Eiffel code with
long class names where many letters are not relevant for the
understanding of the Eiffel code.

> 2. What if I specify PX_STANDARDC_TEXT_FILE and PX_POSIX_DIRECTORY?
>    What do you think about this?

Why not. It's fine to me. Perhaps PX_STANDARDC_TEXT_FILE
is a big long and could be renamed as PX_STDC_TEXT_FILE
provided that STD is a well accepted and understood
abbreviation of STANDARD.

-- 
Eric Bezault
mailto:er...@go...
http://www.gobosoft.com

[gobo-eiffel-develop] build tools

[Andreas L. <no...@sb...>]

Hi Berend,

have you heard about Sven Ehrke's effort to develop a "ant" like tool
for Eiffel. IIRC you also showed interest in developing a similar tool.
I think it would be a good idea to coordinate our efforts to avoid
duplicated work (;


Andreas

Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] build tools

[Andreas L. <no...@sb...>]

And once again I was trapped by reply-to... Sorry the last mail was only
ment for Berend.

sorry for the confusion,
Andreas