On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Oliver Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think having Role:: in the package name is important, and it does convey > information about the function of a module. A role has a use case that is > substantially different from a class - you do not instantiate it, you > compose it. For this reason alone, I personally enjoy the separation of > instantiable objects - my classes - and roles. This is not dissimilar to the > C++ practice (or perhaps it's Java) of prefixing all interfaces with an "I"
You cannot put whole specification into the name - so it will never work automatically that seeing a name you can decide if you need this module or not. -- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
