On 3/5/06, Mark Overmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Stevan Little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060305 02:49]: > > On 3/4/06, Mark Overmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could we try to kind-of pre-register name-spaces for perl6 modules? > > > There is no need to do such a thing, we have the 3 level naming scheme > > in Perl 6 now. > > Foo-0.0.1-cpan:JRANDOM > > I know about the naming scheme, but I am not really looking forward > to the two new perl books "Perl DBI-(Any)-cpan:TIMB" > and "Perl DBI-(Any)-mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > That you have the possibility to work your way out in namespace clashes > shouldn't directly mean that you let them happen easily. I would really > like to maintain a certain hierarchical name-space structure on CPAN, where > we strive for unique names, although can work around accidental collissions.
I agree completely, and to be honest, I think the three level namespace will be more useful in the context of a single company and/or application, and be used more for versioning that anything else. > An other reason to have a kind of module/namespace pre-registration is to > see who is (planning to go) working on what. I think that's needed on the > moment. Well, to start with, there is no C6PAN/SixPan/Whatever-it-will-be-called yet, so there is nothing to pre-register for. Second, Perl 6 is still (at the very least) a year away from a (mostly) complete implementation, and that most likely will not be the "official" one, and only a reference implementation that very few people (read: audrey) will actually use in production. The official version with Parrot and Ponie and few enough bugs to call 6.0.0 is maybe a few years out from that. So pre-registration for namespaces in an unfinished language is a litte premature IMO. And lastly, I really don't like the idea anyway. It reminds me of the domain-name squatters of the mid-90s. Just because I (with my best intentions intact) decide that I want to write World::Domination::Simple in 2006, does not mean that someone else in 2008+ should have to come up with another name because I registered for the namespace I never used (and am unwilling to give up). In addition, while I agree with you that there is some Perl 4/5 cruft in CPAN that really should be tossed, this ignores the legacy apps that might still need to use this code. And as for stealing the good namespaces for writing new (and surely better) but very different Perl 6 modules, I am not actually sure I like that. Of course if the dream of Parrot/Ponie really works 100%, then it will probably be a non-issue, but if it doesn't (and there is yet to be a clear plan layed out as to how we will bridge Perl 5 -> 6), then updating legacy modules to Perl 6 might be something which really needs to happen if people are going to be able to port their larger Perl 5 code within a reasonable amount of time and effort. This is especailly true for modules like File::Spec or Test::More, which so many other modules just use as if they are part of the language. I don't mind re-working my core module to use the new whiz-bang OO features, but I would prefer to be able to automatically (and mechanically) convert my test suite rather than have to covert to some type off xUnit style tests or something. Some things may just need to stay the same, namespace intact. Anything else would IMO further the Perl 5/6 gap that will inevitably exist because of the depths of the language changes. - Stevan
