Data:: does not seem to be the right place -- it seems to be about data formats more than data structures.
What about Data::Dumper Data::Iter Data::Match Data::Grouper ? IMO, the stuff about formats is in the wrong place s/Data::(Encrypted)/Text::$1/ And, maybe we should also s/Data::(Iter)/List::$1/.
Data:: seems like a good place for data structure things that aren't inherently lists, hashes, other "standard CS" things, or that cover several of those.
Really, IMHO the tree modules and yours and probably others more should be in some sort of Datastructure:: namespace.
Whoa! That is way too long.
So, what if List::SkipList becomes Data::SkipList or even Data::List::SkipList?
That'd be foolish. The common data types are used so often and widely they deserve their own top level names like List:: and Tree::.
Well, I might want to create a tied implementation of it. Would that be named Tie::List::Skiplist, or Tie::Data::List::SkipList ? Seems that if we buy the first one, that List:: should be a toplevel namespace.
Ya.
"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut
stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us
wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them
which we are missing."
--Gamal Abdel Nasser
That's great.
-- </chris>
