Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Perl informally reserves lowercase module names for 'pragma' modules > like integer and strict. Other modules normally begin with a capital > letter and use mixed case with no underscores (need to be short and > portable)." > > 1. that's an informal reservation.
Quite a few things in Perl are informal. > 2. It doesn't say anything about ::, but I can't think of any pragmas > with a :: in them. In general, the rule is applied to the top level only. (And yes, there are :: pragma's, e.g. warnings::register). > But we're not talking about modules so much as utilities. As you > said, $name_under_discussion is not really a namespace -- more like: > somewhere to put things. Exactly. And that means that the current rules should be applied with some creativity. > To put it another way: if there were no convention or rule about > lowercaseness, would 'bin::' be a good place for small utilities? Even perl distinguishes 'bin' from 'script', so 'script' would be better. Similar to SUPER and UNIVERSAL, I'd then suggest SCRIPT or BIN or APP to emphasize the fact that we're talking about a pseudo-thing. (And yes, there are some all-uppercase modules already.) Having said all this, CPAN already has a 'scripts' location. For exactly this purpose ;-). -- Johan
