On Monday 20 August 2001 23:16, David Cantrell wrote:
That still doesn't mean that Foo::Bar::Baz-style names don't give us
some benefits. For example, Date::Convert::FrenchRevolution tells us
that the module is for converting dates to and from whatever madness
the French revolutionaries
On Monday 20 August 2001 04:12, Rich Bowen wrote:
Bah, now I can't find the article in the archived. Basically he said
that 3-level names (foo::bar::baz) were unnecessarily hard to find,
and did not do anything to improve the situation. I'm still looking
for the actual postings, and I can't
At 7:09 PM -0400 8/20/01, Rich Bowen wrote:
OK, just making sure that I had the support of a few folks. Remember,
I'm the one that proposed the change in the first place, so I still
think it's a good idea. Mostly, I just have not had time.
So it seems, then, that the sentiment is still for this
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:07:54AM +0200, Abigail wrote:
Hm, that sounds like a sane idea. put a BEGIN block in that bitches
if you're using the old module instead of the new module, but
otherwise just wrapper the old module.
Huh?
What's the point of that? To even get such a module,
Anyone know what the accepted procedure is to change the name of a
module? I presume I just have to talk to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] guys,
for the CPAN portion of this. But with regard to changing the name of
a module in such a way that folks using the module don't suddenly find
that their code does
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Jesse wrote:
The only ones of these that I think are actually being used by more
than one person is Date::ICal and perhaps Date::Leapyear.
If it's in CPAN, that's never a safe assumption. :/
I think he meant module author when he said person.
What have others of
