On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 02:19:44PM -0600, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> > The following was supposedly scribed by
> > Mark Stosberg
> > on Friday 14 November 2003 02:02 pm:
>
> >Still that leaves the issue of naming it. It's still best described as
> >"a module for building CGI applications Mark's way".
> The following was supposedly scribed by
> Mark Stosberg
> on Friday 14 November 2003 02:02 pm:
>Still that leaves the issue of naming it. It's still best described as
>"a module for building CGI applications Mark's way". I could give it
>some generic name like "CGI::Application::TurboCharge", b
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:33:01PM -0600, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> >I think I have a similar concern. Here's my own case: I use a custom
> >sub-class of CGI::Application that I base most of my web-applications
> >on. Eventually, I would like to distribute some of these on CPAN, with
> >several of t
> The following was supposedly scribed by
> Mark Stosberg
> on Friday 14 November 2003 09:00 am:
>I think I have a similar concern. Here's my own case: I use a custom
>sub-class of CGI::Application that I base most of my web-applications
>on. Eventually, I would like to distribute some of these on
From: A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I wasn't saying the code was trash - but a carelessly chosen name
> and no documentation do make it clutter..
I agree it's clutter that's why I'd like it not to be included when people
search. The name is chosen for my convenience and mine only. As Mark
menti
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:57:28AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Original Message:
> -
> From: Struan Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > And if you're including the code in several CPAN modules then
> > shouldn't the code be up to standard for general use? Just because you
> > c
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-14 13:10]:
> But what about code that is shared by several CPAN modules but
> which I don't consider to be worth getting up to standard for
> general use. It's not that the code is "trash", it's fine I
> just can't see anyone else wanting to use it, even i
Original Message:
-
From: Struan Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> And if you're including the code in several CPAN modules then
> shouldn't the code be up to standard for general use? Just because you
> can't see anyone wanting to use it doesn't mean it shouldn't be
> documented.
The
Title: RE: Author's namespace
> * at 14/11 10:25 + Fergal Daly said:
> > But what about code that is shared by several CPAN modules
> but which I
> > don't consider to be worth getting up to standard for general use.
> > It's not that the code
* at 14/11 10:25 + Fergal Daly said:
> But what about code that is shared by several CPAN modules but which I
> don't consider to be worth getting up to standard for general use.
> It's not that the code is "trash", it's fine I just can't see anyone
> else wanting to use it, even if it was full
But what about code that is shared by several CPAN modules but which I don't
consider to be worth getting up to standard for general use. It's not that
the code is "trash", it's fine I just can't see anyone else wanting to use
it, even if it was fully documented.
I suppose I'll just have to upload
If the code is not to be used by others, may be you shouldn't upload it to
CPAN at all?!
If it's a piece of code used by a re-usable module of yours, then it should
be put under
that module's namespace, instead of putting it under a non-related
namespace.
--
sherzod
: -Original Messa
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-14 01:48]:
> The whole point is that it you don't need to be nice to others.
> Ideally, Author::* wouldn't turn up in searches (unless you
> ask for it).
I don't like that idea at all. If you want to go there, make
Authors::FDALY a distribution. Then I w
On Thursday 13 November 2003 22:34, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> I'm not particularly excited about the idea, but it's better than
> duplication. I really like the Authors:: idea, although I'm not
> sure that name is good.
>
> However, the ::MM bit really irks me. If anything, please make
> the name mean
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-13 23:22]:
> Exactly how stupid is this idea?
I'm not particularly excited about the idea, but it's better than
duplication. I really like the Authors:: idea, although I'm not
sure that name is good.
However, the ::MM bit really irks me. If anything, ple
15 matches
Mail list logo
