On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, Jim Bacon wrote:
I have a module on CPAN that I want to add a Moose version to. What is the
naming convention for this?
There isn't one, because this doesn't make much sense. There's really not
any huge benefit to having a Moosified version for end users. The benefits
to using Moose are primarily for the original author. If Moose makes your
life easier, you should consider using it.
Having two implementations of the same module doesn't seem useful.
Generally speaking, naming modules after a specific implementation choice
is a bad idea. People care about what it does, not how.
The big exception is when you provide both a pure Perl and XS
implementation of a module, but even then you can use tools like
Module::Implementation to present a single API to the world.
-dave
/*============================================================
http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org
Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless)
============================================================*/
