In perl.modules, you wrote: > >> I have the impression you're taking a namespace for a function. >> Wouldn't it be more logical to have a class HTML::DataConvert or some >> such and have mthods in there that accomplish all related tasks. >> >> There's certainly more than one possible name for such a class, but >> HTML::DataConvert is the first that comes to my mind. > >It might sound like an easy thing to convert html to an array of arrays, >but I assure you it takes more than a simple method. The object model >works well I think. I just counted and I have 18 subroutines, and it will >be more once I pull some subroutines from some other shared code that I >have. The object method also works well for handling user preferences of >which there can be several.
Take a look at HTML::TreeBuilder. I get the feeling this has been done before, and possibly better. (I hold the author of HTML::TreeBuilder in high regard.) >I would say that in following conventions, perhaps HTML2Results >would be better for the namespace, case wise, and perhaps it should go >into the HTML node. It really is the sister module for results2html which I >also recently requested. If you think they should both go into HTML, I >would be fine with that, but I think Data is a better place for them since >it is more an array of arrays thing then an html thing. No. It's mostly an HTML thing. Just about *everything* in Perl is about arrays and other data types if you think of it like that, but that doesn't mean we put all our modules under Data:: K. -- Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/ Documentation is the castor oil of programming. Managers know it must be good because the programmers hate it so much.
