> > s/Tie::// ?
> >
> > Do I need to be concerned with how the module is implemented?
> > Presumably the documentation will tell me how to use it.
> >
> > Yes, this probably applies to the rest of the Tie:: namespace too.
>
> Oh, I was going to say this.
>
> Tie::Array::Sorted is a good name because it is consistent with many
> other modules.
>
> But I consider them all to be misnamed. The implementation is not the
> most important feature of these modules - why is it the most important
> part of their names?
Personally I disagree. Its many a time ive done
i /^Tie::/
in CPAN.pm to get a list of all the tie modules out there.
And considering the speed penalty of using ties, and the overall interface being orthagonal to the OO model having them clearly marked as a Tie:: is IMO a good thing.
Also I sort of disagree about the implementation argument. At bare minimum a tie isnt useful unless the tie keyword is used. Its actually unusual for tie modules to include a constructor sub. (alas)
What annoys me is all the older Tie:: modules that arent in Tie::Array Tie::Scalar Tie::Hash Tie::Glob etc namespaces.
Yves
