On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 10:16:48PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 03:46:10PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> > Except that CPAN does not work that way. That is, all Date::* module
> > appear on one page, regardless of how deep the namespace is.
>
> That still doesn't mean that Foo::Bar::Baz-style names don't give us
> some benefits. For example, Date::Convert::FrenchRevolution tells us
> that the module is for converting dates to and from whatever madness
> the French revolutionaries used. Calling it simply Date::FrenchRevolution
> would remove that useful information, and we wouldn't know whether it
> was for doing conversions to and from that calendar, whether it was for
> doing calculations in that calendar, or what.
Well, that's a nice argument, if you want the module name to tell you
what the module does, then Date::Convert::FrenchRevolution fails.
A conversion is between two systems. So, Date::Convert::FrenchRevolution
tells us it's converting dates from the French revolutionaries. But
to what? Gregorian? Hebrew? Mayan? Chinese? A standard like Julian days?
Unix epoch seconds?
Not that I'm against 3 level modules names - I've several of them on
CPAN. I've even a 4 level name (Lingua::EN::Numbers::Easy).
Abigail
