Re: Ada Component Registry proposal

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

sk wrote:

> However, since I am foaming at the brain for something, here are my
> thoughts from march this year
...
>  >     Libraries.xxx
>  >
>  > "Libraries" just a graft point, nothing significant about
>  > the name. "Libraries" would, by agreement, have some invarient
>  > subtrees. Perhaps two levels of abstract/conceptual packages
>  > before specific solutions are grafted into the tree ?
>  >

As good as any other...

>  > Libraries.Vendor (invarient, children as needed)
>  >     .Gnat.
>  >         .Os_Lib;
>  >     ...
>  >     .RRSoftware
>  >         .Claw
>  >     ...
>  >
>  > Libraries.Host (invariant, children as needed)
>  >     .Linux
>  >     .Windows
>  >         .Win32Ada...

More a style comment than anything else, I think this hierarchy is not 
bushy enough to be natural for Ada.  For example, above I would prefer:

Libraries.Gnat.
Libraries.Claw
Libraries.Linux
Libraries.Windows

As the second level entries.  We are all big boys and girls who know how 
  to use grep, or the equivalent if we need to do a search.  It might be 
worth having OS as a second level, but only if it didn't push things 
toward a renames.  How about:

Libs.OS.Linux
Libs.OS.Windows...

Of course, resolving this is important. But as far as the registry 
project goes, I need to register what exists now.

-- 
                                              Robert I. Eachus

"Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the 
goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, 
down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or 
down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair 
of an old motorcycle."  -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance by Robert Pirsig