I would like it to be more consistent
though.
Good luck on that. Tell us how it goes.
We should make a "magic 8 ball" faq generator. When someone
asks a new question about some un-enforced CPAN policy, it makes a
random decision and posts the result somewhere for future reference.
Some place that won't get seen.
Lots of people want guidance on a few simple things which would make
CPAN more navigable, but they get an answer of "whatever you want"
when
it is actually a decision that was previously made (by somebody),
In this case, App:: has already been previously been made. I've
already got App::Ack and App::HWD (although their package names are
ack and hwd, respectively). So let's use my convention because my
decision has been previously made.
that it would be nice to have an easy way to deduce what the
established convention is if one exists.)
I'm really not sure what you think "convention" is.
By "good answer", I meant some form of concensus.
What sort of quorum do we need on this consensus? How many people
need to buy in on it? Are you going to organize the Conference On
Namespace Decisions?
If you want namespace to be some form of order (I do), using it for
two
things tends toward entropy. If you wish to avoid chaos, the
answer is
not to use it at all.
I don't see that there's anything confusing in using App:: for both
modules that are apps, and that access other apps, unless you choose
to be confused by them.
Overall, far too much time is spent navel-gazing over Namespaces And
How They Should Be.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
