On 10/6/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Oct 2007, at 11:46, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: > >> Would it also do > >> > >> use relative [to => 'My::Big::Namespace'] => qw( This That > >> Munger::Fast Munger::Precise ); > > > > It can easily do that. The problem is more the name. In this case, > > "use relative to ..." works well. But in y original example, "use > > subclass" works better. Maybe I should provide both modules then. > > I always hesitate to suggest Aristotle is mistaken - it's not a > common occurrence - but I really think 'subclass' is wrong. As you > said this is an extension to the semantics of use that has (I > presume) nothing to do with any inheritance relationship the modules > may have with each other.
I quite agree. > I quite like 'relative' to be honest. And I like the idea of the > module. I'll use it immediately when you release it, thanks. I think the word "relative" is correct but lacks context. The only good thing about "subclass" is that it gives context, but the OO implications are too strong. Maybe some other name that suggests *what* is relative? Would "lib::relative" be too weird?
