[cgi-prototype-users] Prototyping CGI versus CGI::Prototype

2009-08-30 Thread Terrence Brannon
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Not really. The prototype stuff of Moose is where you want to start, and it has a different interface. If you just pulled in Class::Prototyped, you'd have a lot of potential conflicts, especially around anonymous classes. I see. I'm not trying to anger you, but I w

Re: [cgi-prototype-users] Prototyping CGI versus CGI::Prototype

2009-08-30 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
The heir apparent to the CGI::Prototype namespace should support Class::Prototype-styled objects. Under the licensing terms of CGIP, you're free to derive whatever you want and call it whatever you want, but please reserve CGI::Prototype (or names close to it) for something that supports prototyp

Re: [cgi-prototype-users] Prototyping CGI versus CGI::Prototype

2009-08-30 Thread Terrence Brannon
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > The heir apparent to the CGI::Prototype namespace should support > Class::Prototype-styled objects. Right. I'm not suggesting an heir apparent. I'm suggesting an additional module in the distribution, along with associated test suite. This module would extend on the

Re: [cgi-prototype-users] Prototyping CGI versus CGI::Prototype

2009-08-30 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "Terrence" == Terrence Brannon writes: Terrence> I dont want to fork and start a separate distro, just add Terrence> CGI::Prototype::Moose to the CGIP distro. And I'm saying that's the wrong name for that, if it's not about replacing all of what CGIP already does, including prototype inher