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. can 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. HTH
