On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 08:58:56AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 19 October 2013 08:53, Caleb Cushing <xenoterrac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone have any opinions on a namespace for roles that just do
> > requires()? (and/or maybe do full signatures with an around).
>
> Role:: seems acceptable for this purpose imo. Just because a Role has no
> implementation details other than requires doesn't make it lesser than a
> role.
I don't think a top level interface is generally appropriate for these
sorts of things -- it should be primarily be named for the type of thing
it's doing, not how it happens to be implemented.
This also reminds me of the earlier discussion (a few months back, on this
list) around MooseX vs MooseY.
--
"The thing I love most about deadlines is the wonderful
WHOOSHing sound they make as they go past." - Douglas Adams
. . . . .
Karen Etheridge, ka...@etheridge.ca GCS C+++$ USL+++$ P+++$ w--- M++
