> So no, I don't think we're storing random crap at all in the package name > here. You might consider it crap, but it's most certainly not random at all > - so please don't start getting overly subjective here. In regards to > SubExporter doing method installs, yes I would probably also put that in a > separate namespace - I believe this is what the Mixin namespace is for.
Well, then I guess the issue is that I simply disagree with ::Mixin::, ::Trait::, ::Role::, ::Class::, ::Prototype::, ::Interface:: etc. At lest we're both openly advocating consistency. I'm also not saying that the information is a bad idea, per se, just that it would be better in Meta.yml or inferred from the content. With that said, this is CPAN we're talking about here and any effort to reform it or standardize it is a total fruitless waste of time. The web search isn't even open source; and, I think cpan.org is privately owned. I don't think you'll ever convince me to publish under your standard short of first convincing everyone else. And, I think a mechanism for non-aggressive forking and personal version maintainence รก la github would be much more useful. I've published modules with ::ButMaintained, and all I wanted to was get a patch out on CPAN. I still do it because there is no better idea or functionality to cater to this need. When a module is deprecated the unofficial method of publishing that notice is to release the same module with the word DEPRECATED in the pod title. The point I'm trying to make is that if you're trying to make these easier to find, then even if you are right, it really doesn't matter. Nothing will change. But, you're not new to CPAN -- you probably knew this. -- Evan Carroll - [email protected] System Lord of the Internets web: http://www.evancarroll.com ph: 281.901.0011
