I think ::Alt:: should be present in the name, though I do not care where. Why:
* Conveys intent better * Probably easier for indexes to avoid having the alt-module listed as the newest version of the non-alt module * Cpan-testers can filter based on it. Essentially everything boils down to making tooling and expectations easier if one of Alt::/::Alt::/::Alt are required in the namespace. I do not like the idea of making everyone have to go out of there way to look for documentation that explicitly states that the module is alt/non-alt. I do not trust most alt authors to make it clear in docs that their module is alt (ribaushi is one of very few people who I do trust to get this all correct). Enforcing that 'Alt' be present somewhere feels like a win to me in reducing cognitive overhead of users, and making some tooling easier. -Chad On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, David Golden <x...@xdg.me> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have a small objection to putting an alt module in a namespace other >> than alt: It is less obvious. If I see Alt::Thing I will simply know it >> will replace Thing. >> > > > Consider, too, if someone else wants to another alternative Thing. > Alt::Thing2 -- is that a second Alt::Thing? Or an alternative of Thing2? > > Possibly namespacing like Thing::Alt::Boring would then allow > Thing::Alt::Spiffy, etc. But I don't want to have explicit rules about > this. I think intent is more important. > > David >
