On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Sir Robert Burbridge wrote: > On 07/14/2010 11:27 PM, Jesse Luehrs wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:31:26PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: >> >>> I would suggest that as a better distinction - if the *API* is >>> fundamentally tied to Moose, then delivering to a MooseX:: namespace is >>> much more acceptable. If the API is not Moose-specific, then it should >>> not be. >>> >> I disagree here - this would imply that anything written as a role could >> go under MooseX (since roles don't exist outside of Moose), and that's >> pretty wrong in my opinion. I pretty much agree with Dave here (and I >> think that a reasonable low bar (necessary, but not sufficient) is that >> it explicitly touches a metaclass somewhere, although I haven't put very >> much thought into whether that's reasonable or not). >> >> -doy >> > > I would argue that "MooseX" is intended to mean "Moose Extensions," > which should be interpreted "Modules that extend the functionality of > Moose."
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. Any arbitrary role doesn't necessarily extend the functionality of Moose, and I'd argue that if you're not touching metaclasses, you aren't extending the functionality of Moose (with the possible exception of type stuff, I forgot about that yesterday). -doy
