On Wednesday, 30 September 2020 07:55:40 CEST BC wrote:
> I can avoid the whole problem by
> just picking a different but similar name:
>     Class::Fault
> which is currently not used.  For my purposes that name works well.
> The only thing I don't like is that it feels like I am squatting on
> something fairly generic near the top of the name space.  

Which would fine fine provided your Class::Fault is relatively generic. I.e. 
it be used by an unrelated module ?

> If I were to
> push my one and only module down a level as:
>     Class::Fault::Foobar
> would it be a faux pas if there is no Class/Fault.pm or anything else
> at that second level?

If your Fault module is coupled to Foobar, why not create a Foobar::Error (or 
Foobar::Fault) module ?

For the record, I've chosen the latter approach with Config::Model::Exception.


Reply via email to