I agree now this is the path to arrive there that is important to me. Stef On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Stephane, as i said before, i do not see problems with RPackage / naming. These things are orthogonal, as to me. We can keep naming scheme as we use today, but switch to RPackage.
A package can keep the list of category names and that's it. They could even be completely different, if people want it. Say, package is named Foo and contain categories: 'Foo-Core' 'Bar'
The rationale is simple: it is up to human(s) to decide what a package should contain, and what names to use. Let's just embrace the imperfection and do not dictate people how they should name their categories in order to make sure that classes in that categories will be put into concrete package. If people like to confuse themselves with category names, not matching the package name , it should be their own choice and responsibility.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.