>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  LW> Yes, but we just need to be careful not to recreate The Registry.
  LW> We're looking more for "a place for everything and everything in
  LW> its place", but we're still trying to understand what that means.
  LW> As you say, whatever we end up with does have to be extensible,
  LW> since we don't know all the "places" we'll want ten years from now.
  LW> It seems to me that the more places we can come up with now, though,
  LW> the less likely we are to have collisions later, unless our categories
  LW> are artificial.  That tends to argue for separating out VM from OS,
  LW> and maybe COMPUTER, and NET, unless you think that NET =:= COMPUTER.

then why not name it something like *?ENV (not to be confused with the
shell/exec env which is still %ENV i assume)? then under that there are
methods/hash entries like OS, VM, etc. it is the sum of all the
(reasonably) known external things about this perl. OS seems too
specific as does VM. they should just be subparts of the full env. this
is also more like an intelligent Config.pm it seems.


Uri Guttman  ------  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs  ----------------------------  http://jobs.perl.org

Reply via email to