On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:56:46AM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Carrera
>> <daniel.carr...@theingots.org> wrote:
>>> I think we might need to come up with some sort of standard naming
>>> convention to distinguish dependencies. Something that the *user* can
>>> recognize quickly when he browses CPAN.
>>
>> Why do we need the dependencies to be part of the name? Perl 6
>> provides a rugged versioning system for its modules; we should use it.
>
> I read S11 and AFAICT Perl 6 only includes metadata for *versions* and
> *authority*:
>
> class Dog:ver<1.2.1>:auth<cpan:JRANDOM>;
> class Dog:ver<1.2.1>:auth<http://www.some.com/~jrandom>;
> class Dog:ver<1.2.1>:auth<mailto:jran...@some.com>;
Just because these are the only adverbs mentioned doesn't necessarily
mean they're the only ones that will be allowed. Indeed, S11 goes
on to later say:
"The required parts for library insertion are the short name of
the class/module, its version number, and a URI identifying the
author (or authorizing authority, so we call it "auth" to be
intentionally ambiguous)."
The fact that S11 says "required parts" leads me to believe that
there can be other parts that aren't required.
Pm
