Might it be better simply to name the class what it does, and have its moosey-ness go unnamed? Imagine if we started naming things "OO::" when we started using classes, and never stopped.
On 6/8/2013 3:47 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote: > so at YAPC it was again mentioned that you shouldn't use MooseX for > things that don't actually extend moose. It occurred to me that MooseY > might actually make for a good namespace for things that aren't really > big enough to stand on their own, and are really only applicable in > the context of Moose, such as roles, non moose subclasses, etc. > > MooseY because Y is after X and because some of these things make > sense to call them "Moosey" > > Does anyone having any opinions on this? > > -- > Caleb Cushing > > http://xenoterracide.com
