At 10:41 -0800 2000.11.29, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>If anyone's at all interested I could put together a patch for this.
>What's the current version of h2xs? Should I email p5p about this?
>Thanks.
Sounds reasonable to me; my guess would be p5p would be a place to ask
about it, since it is in the per
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
> Maybe you and I have different definitions of stub module. It certainly
> doesn't set up OOP, but perhaps it could be extended to provide default
> constructors, etc., as an option to h2xs. Just in case you don't know,
> here is what it does now:
>
> [pudge@yaz pudge]$
At 9:23 -0800 2000.11.29, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Chris Nandor wrote:
>>
>> Well, h2xs already creates a reasonable module framework, which I think is
>> just fine. If people used it, we would not have a lot of the problems we
>> have, and I don't see people using some external module when they won'
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
> Well, h2xs already creates a reasonable module framework, which I think is
> just fine. If people used it, we would not have a lot of the problems we
> have, and I don't see people using some external module when they won't use
> h2xs. I am not necessarily opposed to the
At 15:54 -0800 2000.11.28, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Anyone have any input on this? It seems like a simple module like this
>could potentially help CPAN. I tentatively chose the Module:: namespace
>because Module::Reload is in there, and this would be something just for
>use by other modules. Comments?
Hey all-
I've been thinking about this for a while. Even with all of the docs out
there on how to construct a nice module, there's a lot of modules that
have poor or inconsistent interfaces, which don't pass -T or even -w,
and so on. So I was thinking: What if there was a Module::Interface that
m
