On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:21:45AM +0000, Peter Haworth wrote: > How about Essential:: or Essence:: ? The problem with adding something > to the end is that you might conflict with the original module's > naming scheme. By contrast, starting a new top-level namespace makes > the project look more cohesive, and provides an obvious location for > the core philosophy.
A good point. Linguistically, of course, it should be EssentialsOf:: - after all, you would talk about "the essentials of CPAN.pm" and "the CPAN.pm essentials". > The other potential advantage that the prefix namespace affords is > that in pathological cases, you can extract multiple essences from > the same original module. I'm not sure this is necessarily a good > idea, though. I think it could be a good idea. There are modules out there which are rather like those crazy tramps who wander around with a shopping trolley piled high with plastic bags containing the mouldering remains of their possessions. DateTime, for example, has methods for handling timezones; methods for doing date/time maths; methods for formatting dates/times. Quite often when I use it I only want to use one very small part of it. Or CGI.pm, which has methods for handling forms; methods for handling cookies; and methods for generating HTML. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic Anyone willing to give up a little fun for tolerance deserves neither _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
