On 10/18/2016 02:05 AM, David Christensen wrote:
module-authors:
I am in the process of writing a Perl distribution that currently
contains a dozen or so packages, several dozen exportable subroutines,
and over a hundred exportable constants.
At this point I feel compelled to ask:
Why?
Why do you want to design a library with so many exportable subroutines
and (worse!) constants?
Now, I concede that the statements above are merely background for your
questions about circular dependencies. So my questions run the risk of
sending discussion off in a different direction. And we don't yet have
your code to look at.
But, on the basis of the experiences of the Perl 5 Porters in
maintaining POSIX.pm -- which suffers from these problems, see
http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/perl-5.24.0/ext/POSIX/lib/POSIX.pod#CAVEATS
-- I would be reluctant to use any library with a large number of
exportable symbols and consequent risk of namespace pollution.
My 2 cents.
Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan
