sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik <ruskie AT codemages.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:24:41 +0100 (CET)
:2010-12-08T22:32:flux:
> Organizational consistency is of course the only reason to move them,
> and it's also the very reason I am citing. However, I'm in charge of
> Cauldron, not the Grimoire, so I will defer to others, but I do like
> consistency. :)
The general consensus last I checked was that a section should have
atleast 15 spells to be on it's own. It should generally solve a common
code issue though more than not we tend to also group by some common
toolkit or something.
Regards
--
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik
Source Mage GNU/Linux Games/Xorg grimoire guru
Re-Alpine Coordinator http://sourceforge.net/projects/re-alpine/
Geek/Hacker/Tinker
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-
[SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/06/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/08/2010
- Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/08/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/08/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.