Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Carrera
<daniel.carr...@theingots.org> wrote:
I think we might need to come up with some sort of standard naming
convention to distinguish dependencies. Something that the *user* can
recognize quickly when he browses CPAN.
Why do we need the dependencies to be part of the name? Perl 6
provides a rugged versioning system for its modules; we should use it.
I read S11 and AFAICT Perl 6 only includes metadata for *versions* and
*authority*:
class Dog:ver<1.2.1>:auth<cpan:JRANDOM>;
class Dog:ver<1.2.1>:auth<http://www.some.com/~jrandom>;
class Dog:ver<1.2.1>:auth<mailto:jran...@some.com>;
This has nothing to do with dependencies. There is no reason why the
same author cannot write two variations of the same module, with
different dependencies. In fact, I suspect that will happen often.
Digest::SHA and Digest::SHA::PurePerl are written by the same author. He
recommends the C version to most people, but he also wrote a Perl only
version for people who don't have access to a C compiler.
module
Using the version or authority fields to denote dependencies is a much
greater abuse than using the base name.
Daniel.
