> > You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
> > the general. Surely that should be:
> >
> > use Policy::O::Reilly;
>
> I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would
> be someone as illustrious as Damian.
Illustrious???
> Do you think Larry doesn't know what he's talking about?
I think Larry's as prone to an occasional misstep as any other desparately
overworked genius.
> OReilly::Policy is (or might be) still general before
> specific. OReilly::* might be a whole family of site-
> specific modules. I think that's safer than supposing
> a universe of Policy::* policy modules.
CPAN's razor: Thou shalt not multiple top-level namespaces without necessity.
If it's an IO mechanism, it goes under IO::
If it's a database driver, it goes under DBD::
If it's a linguistics module, it goes under Lingua::
If it's a policy, it should go under Policy::
Surely you wouldn't condone OReilly::IO::File, OReilly::DBD::TimBase,
OReilly::Lingua::EN::Puns, when they ought to be IO::File::OReilly,
DBD::TimBase::OReilly, and Lingua::EN::Puns::OReilly???
So by all means let's have the "whole family" of site-specific modules".
But put them under something like a Local::O'Reilly (Local::VALinux,
Local::ActiveState, Local::Microsoft, etc.) namespace.
Let's not have a Policy policy that spawns 50,000 new top-level packages.
Damian
