On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:37:38PM +0100, Andreas J. Koenig ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:25:20 -0800, "Dave Cross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Hope this clears things up. If you'd rather it was called something
> > like Stupid::Approx::Sub, I'd behappy with that too.
>
> Maybe Devel::Approx ot Devel::Symbols::Approx? The rootlevel Approx::
> seems too fuzzy to me for such a targetted module family.
OK. I agree that is does sound a little 'wide-ranging' for my module.
How about we go for Symbol::Approx::Sub? We've had a discussion on the mailing list
and that seems to be our favourite.
Please let me know what you think - as I am giving a talk to london.pm on the module
this week and would like to know what to call it :)
Cheers,
Dave...
--
http://www.dave.org.uk | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Be careful what you dream of, it may come up and surprise you"
- Ian MacNabb
