-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> IMO, App:: is too much of a grab-bag to be any sort of useful separation
> or organization.
Well, this is a perfectionnist stance. The upside is that having two
purposes for a single namespace component is "only" one too many, and
I hear Andy's argument that the CPAN is bound to remain a mess anyhow
so App::NutsPKI would be good enough for me.
> I think authors should strongly consider bin::* for any new utilities.
I would obviously +1 to using a pristine namespace for applications,
but I don't quite like that particular name. "bin::" is lowercase and
therefore reserved for pragmas. Also, "bin" means either "binary"
(which a Perl application typically is not) or "/usr/bin" (but Perl is
portable to non-UNIX systems, and what about /usr/sbin and /var
anyway?) When I see "bin::NutsPKI" I think "oh, that's some big
monolithic script in Perl to generate certificates or something". The
intent of "App::" seems clearer to me.
"Application::" is nearly pristine right now and that's why I proposed
it in the first place, but I understand that it's a bit of a mouthful
(or typeful?).
Other ideas?
- --
<< Tout n'y est pas parfait, mais on y honore certainement les
jardiniers >>
Dominique Quatravaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRkyHJfTYH7KfeIIFAQLOQgP/ezLvoxkuj8kAI6yx5DlJ+ZTMntdy6fIx
oFc0cu/eUvDk5SarP14AMj5gAmC3sxQpY+hO8alvwH7KSDJdSFRZJm1e1W0V9m7c
Rr9grqmuNQqVnSUaDpfvBys2wbfQcwMZO8JFP46jFa/9Ka0gzs/fQ/m2c6sZ1wUB
ZtNf4m8CNvE=
=5RKu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
