FYI... I got the email below from the current maintainer.
They plead innocence, as it was an inherited example...
;-)
On 2013-11-12 00:59, Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ 迪拉斯 wrote:
So if I wanted to add Math::Simple.pm, ...
Should it even be listed as a module?
No, example packages should not be indexed. File a bug with `Inline`,
state your intentions of taking over the namespace for a
different/greater purpose, ask for PAUSE permissions on the namespace,
tell how to prevent that further releases of Inline show up indexed
with `Math::Simple` (either <http://p3rl.org/CPAN::Meta::Spec#no_index>
or the hack where the `package` keyword and the namespace literal are
declared across two lines, I forgot where this is documented),
optionally provide a Makefile.PL patch/distribution meta file that
achieves this.
-----
On 2013-11-11 18:11, sisyph...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: L. A. Walsh Sent: Tuesday, November
12, 2013 11:01 AM To: sisyph...@optusnet.com.au Subject: Re: Math::Simple
Isn't your Math Simple meant to be an example?
I.e. it seems it shouldn't be getting indexed as a perl module
offering functionality, as
its a demo for how to use Inline, no?
Yes, that's all it's meant to be.
After installing Inline, you certainly won't be able to load a
"Math::Simple" module - as it doesn't get installed.
I've seen double listings (look at 'P', there's a really old listing
for someone
else who has a reference to P in their directory, but not as a module.
Have a try at uploading your Math::Simple if you like. It may succeed
and it does then that's fine - it's not going to get clobbered by my
Math::Simple unless someone actually builds and installs the demo. (And,
in the next release of Inline, I can rename the demo module to something
like Inline::ModDemo, where it shouldn't cause any grief to anyone in
the future.)
The thing I don't understand is that yours, in your directory hierarchy
is really under Math/Simple/Simple.pm -- i.e. Math::Simple::Simple.pm
Mine is under Math/Simple.pm. I'm not even sure why yours is listed
the way it is -- especially since it is an example for Inline, no?
Yes, I don't know why it's being listed - nor do I know for how long it
has been listed. (It's presence in the Inline package pre-dates my
maintainership of the module.)
-----
