Damian Conway wrote:
> If it's a policy, it should go under Policy::
If it's an OReilly site module, it should go under OReilly, eh?
What's general and what's specific is entirely a matter of
perspective, since "OReilly" and "Policy" are entirely
orthogonal concepts.
> 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???
"They ought to be"? It's the same judgment.
I don't find yet another example particularly convincing.
> 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.
BSD, BE, FreeBSD, HPUX, Mac, MSDOS, OS2, etc. etc.
Shouldn't they all go under OS?
And don't forget Sun::*, which is (meant to be) a model of
vendor-specific namespaces.
If I work at OReilly, I don't need a Local:: in front of my
OReilly to tell me that it's a local namespace.
> Let's not have a Policy policy that spawns 50,000 new top-level packages.
What's the problem? There will be only one, or a handful, at
any given site.
--
John Porter
