On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:26:02PM -0500, Steve Linberg wrote: > Yes, that's what I was referring to earlier, but it's not quite the > same thing. I could "bury" things in Local::, but I guess part of > the issue is that these are modules I might like to actually release > someday, if I ever feel they're good enough and might be useful to > others, and I'd like to be able to do that without changing > Local::Foo references everywhere I've referenced them.
If you make a Foo:: module that is the same or or an upgrade to your Local::Foo, you could change your local copy of Local::Foo to delegate all of its calls to the new Foo module. And OO module could do it just with a 'package Local::Foo; use base qw(Foo)'. A module that exports symbols would have to re-export them. On the other hand, when talking with the rest of the Boston.com dev team about a new local namespace, I suggested that Local:: is exactly what we were looking for. (I don't think the Foo_Corp:: suggestion was there at the time) Everyone else argued against it. If I understood their concerns correctly, it was because it was aesthetically displeasing. (Maybe they had better reasons than that, but their point of view and mine werew so diametrically opposed, that was all I got out of it.) -- "Maybe I should be in Hollywood!" -- Samantha Langmead, age 5, on learning how to use iMovie. _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
