[SVN] Bundle commit 179

[William D. Neumann]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Chris Thomas wrote:

> Yes and no. The basic idea is that there should be a minimum of top-level 
> categories, and elements that are similar should be grouped together into 
> similar categories.

Sure.  I was mainly wondering if there was some kind of standard list for 
the top-level names, and perhaps for second level as well.  For example, 
I'm using a type top-level, with variant, polyvariant, and storage as 
second level names, and I have no strings toplevel, using instead 
constant.string.

> The choices I make are primarily intended to group with similar elements in 
> other languages, except where I didn't recognize the construct. Yours may 
> well be superior to mine; I claim no OCaml expertise. :) So you may want to 
> replace or tweak my choices. My feelings will not be hurt. :)

Actually, most of them were pretty similar.  I just wondered if I would be 
violating some unwritten rule if I stuck with some of my earlier choices.

William D. Neumann

---

"There's just so many extra children, we could just feed the
children to these tigers.  We don't need them, we're not doing 
anything with them.

Tigers are noble and sleek; children are loud and messy."

         -- Neko Case

  Think of XML as Lisp for COBOL programmers.

 	-- Tony-A (some guy on /.)