On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 12:45:42PM -0700, Jim Bacon wrote: > I agree that just because a module uses Moose it doesn't mean it should be > in the Moose or MooseX namespace, that was never the issue.
It also shouldn't be in the ::Moose pseuod-namespace. To summarise what I'm saying below in case of tl;dr; Either (a) document the use of Moose or (b) use Moo. Don't pollute the module name. The naming convention for modules using Moose is "don't put it in the name". > However, I don't think it is wrong to let people know that Moose is involved I don't think it is either. As I said already, http://metacpan.org/module/Name::Of::Module shows dependencies so people should already know. As I said already, I have no argument against you documenting it. It's just silly to put it in the name. > since the first time you install such a module on an older platform (and > there are some hosting sites that still run 5.8.8) you are in for a > surprise. The newest version of perl I have seen on the hosting sites I deal > with is 5.10.1 and they do not have a full install of the MooseX stuff. Yes, > the end user will installing missing modules into their own directories, but > it is time consuming. I run: curl -L cpanmin.us | perl - -l$HOME/perl5 Moose and then go for a coffee. But, as I say, if you're worried about that, I wrote Moo to provide an alternative choice that still gives Moose users all the advantages. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
