On Thu, 17 May 2007, Andy Lester wrote:
On May 17, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
One of the oldest ideas for namespace decisions was that when a family
of modules constitutes something you can perceive as a framework, then
any top level namespace is ok. It makes no sense when everybody just
grabs a toplevel namespace with a cute name but when you come with a
bag of modules, you deserve one.
The whole idea of levels of namespace has pretty much been outdated anyway.
Why is Nike::Foo any better or worse than App::Nike::Foo?
Nobody actually uses this hierarchy. There's not some outline. We don't
traverse a strict tree.
Erm... yes we do.
Yeah, there's no tree-browsing capability on CPAN. I wish there was.
Right now I have to make do by entering things like "Math::" in the CPAN
search box. It's clunky, but it is all I've got, since the ridiculous
and useless modlist seems to be treated as an alternative to tree-like
searching.
Does it matter that WWW::Mechanize isn't LWP::Mechanize? Shouldn't similar
things be named in the same TLNS?
Why isn't RT::* App::RT::*? Or WWW::RT::*?
Because there's no official tree structure. Straw man argument, we
already know that. That doesn't mean that we don't try to give at least a
semblance of order. That there are multiple trees doesn't changed the
fact that there are trees.
-john
