At 18:52 21.06.2002, Doug MacEachern wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: > > > I understand your position Doug, but people seemed to agree (I say > "seemed" > > because there weren't that many replies) that we needed a better > > organization of the modules, and the extra '::' actually gives a better > > separation for the human mind :) You can see > > http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/skeldkendtrau for the thread. The > > problem is that if you oppose that (as well as Stas), there won't be any > > change. Do you feel really strongly about this? Because atleast for the > > Auth* and Log* there is "some kind" of organization now, but for the > others > > it's mostly a mess. > >i don't feel too strongly. however, if you do feel strongly, i would ask >a few things: > >- take the existing Apache::* modules and create a list (perhaps >module list style) using your suggested naming convention and let's see >how it looks
As I said in the thread, I didn't want to change the names of existing modules. That would probably be messy. But I guess it could be good as an example of what things would look like. I'll do it next week-end when I'm finally on vacation. >- ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] why the module list says: >"Please avoid using more than one level of nesting for module names >(packages or classes within modules can, of course, use any number)." > >to gain their insight or perhaps to hear they no longer feel that way. Yes, I'll do that. When I read it it sounded more like organization advice (I think I read it once and they had an example like Math::Big::Simple and Math::Simple::Big, but that doesn't seem to be there). -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
