Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57 AT fastmail.fm>]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:06:34 +0500
"Alexander Tsamutali" <astsmtl AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Not a long ago i had created section for haskell libraries. I
> > > didn't found any good reason to call this section
> > > haskell-hackagedb or something like that so i called it just
> > > haskell. I think that using cpan, pear, pypi, hackagedb in
> > > section names is bad, because our sections are not connected with
> > > these projects. So i prefer names like haskell or python-devel
> > > instead of perl-cpan, php-pear.
> > >
> >
> > The only reason why "haskell" as a section is ok is cause there is
> > no "haskell" spell else you would get:
> >
> > gaze version haskell <-- versions of all spells in said section
> > instead of just the spell :)
> >
> > I'm all for changing this... Someday there'll be a ruby-raa or some
> > such as well ;)
> 
> I was afraid of such scenario but didn't check. Ok so my vote is for
> lang-devel scheme and therefore to preserve current name.
> 
> Also i think that gaze behavior may be changed and shouldn't affect
> the decision on section name. All sorcery tools should understand
> where we're talking about spell and where about section. In short:
> spell names and section names should not affect each other. Other
> opinions here?

I agree that gaze version should not return section contents. The current 
behaviour is a right pain when a spell happens to have the same name as a 
section, and I find that comes up more often than you might think. I 
frequently use the various gaze commands as part of a compound command, but 
the unpredictability of gaze version can render the whole compound useless.