On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:51:18PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:43:27AM +1300, Sam Vilain wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:19, Nicholas Clark wrote; > > > > > Autrijus suggested Compress::Zlib::PurePerl, which I think is > > > reasonable. > > > > ...but it doesn't use Zlib! :) Compress::Gzip? > > But it doesn't compress. Compress:Gunzip? > Uncompress::Gzip (Neither really meant as serious suggestions) > > Problem is that it's an emulation of bits of Compress::Zlib's interface, > so I feel that a clue should be in the name. As should the bit that it's > pure perl, as otherwise it's like "huh, why another front end to some C > code"?
I agree. Compress::Zlib::PurePerl seems okay, but there's really no need for the extra level. Compress::ZlibPP would be fine. (It seems that 'PP' is becoming a convention for 'pure perl'.) Sure, it doesn't compress today, but it might in future. (Meanwhile it could emulate the whole API and just return errors when interfaces it doesn't support are called.) Tim.
