Rename Assets package to Asset

[masted]

I'm writing tool for auto-building mootools dependencies by parsing code. And I have a problem with Object "Asset". It named in meta-data comments as "Assets". Why it was made like that? And can we rename Assets "package" to Asset?

[SergioCrisostomo]

If its a pattern that all other modules have then I guess we should change it. Lets see what others say.

[arian]

We could add Asset.image, Asset.javascript, Asset.css to the provides.

On the other hand, the requires / provides are supposed to match, we don't guarantee anywhere that this provided name actually matches some javascript variable name.

[SergioCrisostomo]

Good idea @arian.

@masted if you use provides: [Asset.image, Asset.javascript, Asset.css] in this line can your work with that in your tool?

[masted]

Yes. It would be enough

[anutron]

Note that provides (as we original envisioned it) does provide things that don't match necessarily. For example:

provides: [Class.Extras, Chain, Events, Options]

We also at some point (though I can't remember where) used this for deprecated names (i.e. some new feature replaced and old one and provided backwards compat for the old one, so it provided that thing too).

I think it's fine to provide numerous things. Here's another example where the filename is (by convention) Class.Refactor but the thing provided is a function, so it defines Class.refactor. So the provision is:

provides: [Class.refactor, Class.Refactor]

[SergioCrisostomo]

Fixed in #1335