suggest DBIx::Concept for module name?

[Darren Duncan]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, nkuipers wrote:
> DBIx::ConceptI
> You're not really defining a database concept, you're just defining an
> interface
> for more intuitive (conceptual) syntax and some light, on-the-fly, no-op
> recovery; "Do What I Mean".  You could maybe go out on a limb and call it
> DBIx::Intuitive(I). ;p
> Nathanael

Thanks for the quick feedback, Nathaneal.  And while short, this is a good
enough argument to make me rethink this.

Here's a question: I actually
thought of 'DBIx::Conceptual' first, with 'Concept' for short; would the
longer name make any difference?  I do agree with the idea behind having
'I' or 'Interface' in the name as far as making it descriptive goes,
although I'm not sure if it is practical.  Technically, the 'DBI' part
already implies that this is an interface, so what is another 'I' good
for?

Also, I should clarify that I didn't intend for my module to be an
artificial intelligence.  It is still meant to take precise and
unambiguous input as to what the user wants to happen.  It is more just
being creative as to the precise implementation, because the precise
implementation for the same task varies by the DBMS.  While someone could
extend it so, I didn't want to get into AI since this would make it fat
(lots of calculations to make an educated guess) and more error prone
(guessing wrong).

Thank you. -- Darren Duncan