[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's clear the "Category::Foo" scheme has the greater number of distributions. > It's also clear there's no firmly established best practice here. I tend to think that it depends on the library, so there isn't a best rule for everything. > I'm looking to build a very thin wrapper around libmemcached > (http://tangent.org/552/libmemcached.html) > a high-performance feature-rich interface to memcached. For well known libraries that aren't going confuse a general case, I don't see a problem with a top-level namespace such as Memcached. > So, here's the point: does anyone have any good objections to my > establishing a new precident by using the Lib:: namespace for this? > (Or perhaps CLib:: or SysLib:: or ...) > > Or should I just add to the general mess in the Cache:: namespace? I'd prefer Lib:: to Cache::. As you say, Cache is a mess. -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org archives at http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules please send all messages back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
