That sounds delightfully nerdy—kind of like turning a library into a living spreadsheet. I’d imagine the Dewey classes as modules and the decimal subdivisions as subpackages. But the trick is that the “human” part of the Dewey system, the context behind each number, is what gives it meaning. In code, if you rely too heavily on numeric keys you end up with a labyrinth of magic numbers that even you can’t remember why you chose 742.3 instead of 744.1. Maybe a hybrid: keep the Dewey numbers for metadata, but map your actual logic to descriptive names, so the cataloging stays helpful without turning your codebase into an obscure card catalog.

Sure thing, I’ll leave the Dewey codes in the dusty corners and stick to a tidy namespace—names are the real librarians of code, not numbers. If you ever need a glossary, I’ll write one in a separate file and promise not to put 740.8 in the header.

Glad it works—just think of the glossary as a friendly index card tucked next to the code, not a secret code. No hidden card catalogs here, only a neat reference for anyone who wants to dig into the Dewey lore.