On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:12:58AM +1100, Alfie John wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:02:40PM +0100, Matt S Trout wrote: > > Data::Selector ? > > The problem with 'Selector' is that it doesn't tell you what the module > does. That's why Path was the most obvious choice. The only thing close > to that would be Tree, but then again I don't think people think of > trees as they do paths. > > So I think 'Path' is the most obvious choice. Since Simple isn't liked, > what about the following? > > - Data::Path::Manip > - Data::Path::Access > - Data::ByPath
Maybe Data::ByPath::RW or something? The read/write-ness is something people are going to care about. > To be honest, after all these examples nothing is jumping at me and so I > still prefer Data::PathSimple. You're welcome to upload it under that name without registration, you know. I don't tend to register my own modules these days; I regard the registration process more as a useful feedback cycle on naming than anything else. I'm also starting to think that the reasons why many ::Simple modules are actively hated by experienced perl programmers may not apply from your point of view - or more accurately, that I'll probably hate your module for the same reasons ... but that the people who won't will search for ::Simple modules for a different set of reasons. So the name might be ok after all. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
