Proliferation of small packages

[Tim Penhey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 30/05/13 19:07, Ian Booth wrote:
> My IDE "types" all the imports for me so I personally don't mind if
> there are many.
> 
> I'm +1 on the focused functionality argument as opposed to a big
> bucket of everything all in one approach.
> 
> On 30/05/13 17:03, Tim Penhey wrote:
>> On 30/05/13 18:14, David Cheney wrote:
>>> Apart from everything inside the utils/* can be moved into one 
>>> package, I have no other examples at this time.
> 
>>> My meta comment would be when considering writing new code,
>>> don't automatically try to namespace it with a package.
> 
>> While I agree in principle, I don't see any problem with having
>> small defined namespaces of functions.

My agreement was around the meta comment of considering existing
packages rather than creating a new one for new work by default.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlGnBuAACgkQd1fvI4G7WRAg4gCgqopX9m0Spwc4xJhZO+Eu11o3
904AnjNarMaulkr+o1KX4/xNrs04tMHM
=1+lP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----