I second Reverend Chip's comment. Too much what its implemented with rather
than what it does among module names. -- Darren Duncan
On 2013.06.09 8:26 PM, Reverend Chip wrote:
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
