On 12-09-08 02:49 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
Just because its personal, doesn't mean its not meant for reuse. Even
if it just personal reuse, it is still reuse. And IMVHO, reuse is what
CPAN is all about.
What do you think?
Fwiw, I tend to agree that as long as it can be useful for somebody
else, it's worth putting on CPAN.
I happen to have a Task::BeLike::YANICK and a
Dist::Zilla::PluginBundle::YANICK[1]. The latter, I would argue, needs
to be on CPAN as its absence would seriously impede contributions and
collaborations on my modules on GitHub. The former I see as a living
list for anybody curious to see what tools I'm using in my day-to-day
hacking -- not exactly the most vital piece of information CPAN will
ever have, I concede, and will doubtlessly be made obsolete by upcoming
metacpan features, but hey, with a tarball of 20k it's hard to go wrong.
Now, as for the choice of namespaces, Author::* versus *::*::Author, I
agree that the first is more neat. But only as long as we have the
right search tools to include those in global searchs (I'm thinking of
cases where I want to look at, say, all dzil plugins, public and
personal alike)
Joy,
`/anick
[1] Alas, they both pre-date the Author:: discussion and so are missing
that part in their namespaces, mea culpa.
