Ian Langworth writes: > Ovid: TAP::Parser::Pedantic > > Schwern: TAP::Parser::Heuristic
That's the best idea: nobody claiming that his particular parser is _the_ TAP::Parser (or even _the_ TAPx::Parser), but giving them parallel names with adjectives that hint at ways in which they differ. Even if the hints are obscure it's better than just having arbitrary different names. At least, nobody claim that namespace _yet_. A few years down the line we might've collectively learnt enough that we bless one particular parser as canonical, or perhaps we'll make TAP::Parser be a front end multiplexer for picking which parser to load. > I've always feared /^[A-Z]+x::/ namespaces because I never understood > them. They make sense in some circumstances, where there is a well defined project or system which itself is spread across several modules, and other folk wish to contribute modules which are not part of that system but are extensions to it. But ... I don't think that applies here; it isn't that there's a "core" Tap system and a clear distinction between that and extensions to it, and I think it would just get confusing trying to remember which are TAP:: and which are TAPx:: modules. Smylers
