On Fri, September 25, 2020 4:12 pm, David Cantrell wrote:
> On 25/09/2020 19:59, Dan Book wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:20 PM BC <bill.co...@alumni.unh.edu
>> <mailto:bill.co...@alumni.unh.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Let's say I wanted to submit a module named:
>>
>> Â Â Â Class::Error::Foobar
>>
>> Would this be considered bad form if my "Foobar" module is not
>> related
>> to the existing Class::Error module in any way? In other words,
>> Foobar does not depend on, extend, nor reference the Class::Error
>> module other than perhaps a courtesy "See Also" mention.
>>
>> It is not necessarily bad form, but if there is an existing
>> "Class::Error" ecosystem you might consider asking the author first in
>> case they wanted to use that sub-namespace. That does not really seem to
>> be the case here.
>
> I'd say that you should ask no matter what, and should also consider
> using something like Foobar::Error instead. Partly to avoid trampling on
> someone else's namespace, but also because using C::E::Foobar might give
> your users some incorrect expectations if they are already using
> Class::Error elsewhere.
>
> --
> David Cantrell
>
>
I'm of two minds. If the top and second level is large enough then it's
possible that the "ecosystem" has escaped the menagerie and it not really
under the top-and-second namespace author's control. Likewise, if the
author is clearly limiting their module to one purpose, then I don't
believe this is an issue.
But that's making assumptions that I don't know are true about your case.
If neither one is true, then yes, contact the author.
Disclosure of bias on my part: I am the author of Math::Polynomial::Solve,
and the then-author of Math::Polynomial was clearly an example of the
second case.
--john
