On 10/18/2016 02:05 AM, David Christensen wrote:

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 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

Reply via email to