History of Anatomy of a Package
Version 1 | Current version | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following files make up a bitweaver package. Your packages is free to do and act however it pleases. However, the following files are standardized and the core packages will look for these files in your packages. Only one is truly required.
| The following files make up a bitweaver package. Your packages is free to do and act however it pleases. However, the following files are standardized and the core packages may look for these files in your packages.
The filenames specified in grey are my thoughts are what the file names could be migrated to with the aim of improving consistency and ease of understanding. The ideas being; that there is no point in package name repetition/redundancy in the file names and it is already discouraged in the CodingGuidelines, and that introducing a prefix of 'bit_' to files that are loaded just because of their names and location in a package would help indicate them as such files. |