On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:56:00AM -0500, Peter Berghold wrote: > No particular reason. It didn't even occur to me that there was a "Games" > TLD until I noticed it. The one issue I noticed though is the fact there is > already a Games::Dice namespace. If we moved my stuff to Games::RPG::* > that might avoid the namespace collision that is likely to occur.
That was what I had in mind. > Another issue that I can think of is the fact that I've already written > (and am doing pre-release cleanup for) a lot of code that looks for > RPG::Dice as a module. That's just a lot of s///ing and some checks that your tests still pass :) > Not to mention the fact that going from > RPG::Traveller to Games::RPG::Traveller is a very minor PITA. Not only does > the code need to be refactored but things such as > > my $parsec = new RPG::Traveller::Starmap::Parsec() > becomes > my $parsec = new Games::RPG::Traveller::Starmap::Parser(); Neither of those are acceptable perl. You wanted - my $parser = Games::RPG::Traveller::Stramp::Parser->new; See http://shadow.cat/blog/matt-s-trout/indirect-but-still-fatal/ for an explanation of why indirect object notation should never be used. > which makes me wonder how many levels deep does the namespace need to go? Enough to not be creating confusing top level namespaces, for preference - for example, Games::RPG is unambiguously about roleplaying whereas RPG:: could mean the programming language RPG. > Sorry for the lack of response. I have not even looked at my email (except > this account) for a while. I added this account to PAUSE for that reason. RPG::Dice lists - Peter L. Berghold <pe...@berghold.net> so perhaps that needs to be corrected? -- 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.
