Re: New script category!

Rich Bowen wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Clemens Giegerich wrote:
>
> > The name results from a beginner point of view. In our department
> there
> > are many users which have only basic knowledge about programming
> > therefore the script was called after the primary function for this
> > users: making filter scripts. This is the reason why my first
> category
> > request was Text::Filter too.
>
> My point was that I have no idea what "filter" means. Presumably it
> meant something particular to your users. To me, filter means perhaps
> something that is done to coffee, or not done to fine wines, or what
> happens to my email before it reaches my mailbox so I get less spam.
> In
> the context of regular expressions, or of your script, I don't know
> what
> filter means.
>

That is exactly the point. Instead of filtering coffee, wines or email
you filtering text (Text:: !!!) by regular expressions or the saved
scripts.

>
> > > My opinion, for what it's worth, is that "Regex" might be a more
> > > appropriate category for this particular program, if I am
> correctly
> > > understanding what it does.
> > >
> >
> > If you see the primary function of the script to develop regular
> > expression than the right category should be Regex:: but the script
> > should also get a new name as you already mentioned (e.g mkRegex.pl,
>
> > regexEvaluater.pl, ...). I developed the script for exactly this
> purpose
> > but after some time I mainly used it for filtering too. Now I think
> the
> > script should be named and categorized by the beginner point of view
>
> > (the primary users).
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich Bowen - [email protected]
> > > ... and another brother out of his mind, and another brother out
> at
> > > New
> > > York (not the same, though it might appear so)
> > >         Somebody's Luggage (Charles Dickens)
> >
> > Any further comments?
> > What do you think about Regex:: and regexEvaluater.pl?
>
> That sounds great to me. I think. :-)

I have no problem with this but it was importand for me to make the
different semantics clear so that the community can choose the best
naming.

>
>
> --
> Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me.
> Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.

Any further opinions (comments)????

Clemens