> Your new Mojo::Bass package is (intentionally I know) very similar to > Mojo::Base. I get the joke, but I wonder if it’s a potential source of > confusion, when a third person looks at code using your module, but their > brain just sees “Mojo::Base”? > > I’m not suggesting this as the name to use, but seeing something like > > use Mojo::BaseWithLexicalHas; > > That is so ugly =)
Why thank you! > I get your concern, but the headline of the module is > > Mojo::Bass - Mojo::Base + lexical "has" > > and Mojo::Bass is such a tiny patch over Mojo::Base, that it won't hurt much > if you misread Mojo::Bass for Mojo::Base. > > The thing is that minimalist Mojo::Base only does a single pollution - which > is leaving "has"behind in the user namespace. And Mojo::Bass selling point > would be that, by changing a single letter, you can get rid of this. > > I really prefer to leave it as it is. And I doubt that we will see any > adoption at all for this module. Fair enough. I’ll keep your reply, just in case you end up living a life of leisure off the proceeds of Mojo::Bass, and I can reply with “aha!” :-) Thanks for coming back to me. Cheers, Neil
