At 21:47 03.09.2002, Randy Kobes wrote: >On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: > > > At 22:52 02.09.2002, Randy Kobes wrote: > > "e) The perhaps most interesting namespace protection is provided by the > > perl symbol table itself. A namespace Foo:: is just a package name and its > > relationship to a namespace Foo::Bar:: is not predetermined whatsoever. > The > > two namespaces can be closely or loosely related or not related at all, > but > > what's most important, they can be writen by different authors who may > work > > rather independently from each other. So if you have registered any > > namespace, it does not mean that you own the whole namespace tree that > > starts there. If you are registered as the contact for Foo::Bar, you are > > not necessarily also associated with Foo::Bar::Baz. " > > > > See http://www.cpan.org/modules/00modlist.long.html#ID5_NamespaceCo > >That's what I meant by the hierarchy not being a forced >convention. However, this natural association has evolved, at >least for 2nd level namespaces (eg, File::Spec::* related to >File::Spec, Apache::Session::* related to Apache::Session). It >isn't as widespread at the top level, where it does occur (eg, >Tk::* related to Tk), but also, when the name isn't a module (eg, >File), it denotes a generic category. But having a 2nd level name >denoting a generic category isn't widespread, so the >useage/inheritance association is more widely expected when the >2nd level name exists already as a module.
That's all right, I agree with your point, I just think of Util:: as the most appropriate name. I don't want us having an endless argument on this small naming issue. I'm open for suggestions if you have any other appropriate name for that category. -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
