Re: Bug#727078: ITP: libobject-container-perl -- simple object container
I'd love to be able to provide a version that's in grammatical
English, but I don't understand what it's trying to say well enough to
make it say it.
Chris Bannister wrote:
> Marius Gavrilescu wrote:
>> Description : simple object container
>>
>> This module is a object container interface which supports
Wrong article (s/a/an/).
>> both OO interface and Singleton interface.
Missing article(s) and a confusing profusion of interfaces.
Aren't Singleton classes themselves necessarily OO?
(When should "singleton" get a capital S?)
>> If you want to use one module from several places, you might use
"Places" in what sense? I don't understand the problem - what's
stopping me saying "use Foo" wherever necessary?
>> Class::Singleton to access the module from any places.
"Any places" should be... something different. And this sentence
seems repetitive. But I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Why
would I want to use Class::Singleton to access a module?
>> But you should subclass each modules to singletonize.
"Each" should probably be followed by singular "module", but I can't
follow this. Does it mean "in order to singletonize (something) you
should subclass each module"? Or maybe "Each module which is to be
singletonized should be subclassed"? Or "You should subclass each and
every module, so that singletonization occurs"? Or... what?
>> This module provide singleton container instead of module itself,
Wrong agreement (provides), missing article(s). But what is it trying
to say? "This X provides a Y instead of X itself"? My brain hurts.
>> so it is easy to singleton multiple classes.
>
> Is it easier to use a noun as a verb than explain it in plain English?
It could at least have re-used "singletonize" instead of invoking it
as a one-off.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: