Re: Ada Component Registry proposal

[sk <noname@myob.com>]

rieachus@comcast.net:
 > ... I would prefer:
 >
 > Libraries.Gnat.
 > Libraries.Claw
 > Libraries.Linux
 > Libraries.Windows

Personally, I would prefer conceptual, "OS", "Network", "Vendor" at
the second level but I also see that this can become very messy. I
did like the idea of the tree that was the R1000 environment but at
the same time, it became a pain trying to remember where everything
was.

 > Libs. ...
Everyone knows that "Libs" means "Libraries" but the shortened form
bugs me like acronyms do, anal retentive I know, but why not spell
every thing out ?

 > ... I need to register what exists now.

Ah, I was under the impression from the other thread that you were
proposing a formal approach before collecting data. Admittedly, I
have been having more fun trying to bait Russ, but it seems as if the
other thread has become a discussion between MDCondic and WGGay over
how to put a library together, either highly competitive or highly
cooperative.

Regardless, I posted my thoughts to see how others felt and I am
not too concerned (not zealous) about any of my issues as long as
the process has a certain level of open discussion.


 > ... I need to register what exists now.

... and from a previous post  ...

 > I think we should be aiming for the future, not the past.

Not XOR but there seems to be a certain OR about the two statements :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------