> Therefore, being OO and using overloaded operators *DOES* make a
> difference to some people, first because most of the Date modules
> existing so far are functional
All of them, I think?
> and second, because there are so
> many different Date modules right now that creating a new one
> which
I've already given my opinion on the matter and don't want to keep
restating it, so I'll keep it brief, I hope.
At 8.28 +0200 2000.06.27, Steffen Beyer wrote:
>Hello Chris Nandor, in a previous mail you wrote:
>> Note that "Date::Object" tells me not a jot about what the module
>> actually doe
I agree with Chris.
On the point of *_XS names. I would encourage people to have both XS/non-XS
called the same and choose which to install at install time. I have done
this with some of my modules.
Graham.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 06:03:00PM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 23.17 +0200 2000.06.2
For the record, I strongly agree with everything Chris says here.
-Jon
Chris Nandor writes:
> At 23.17 +0200 2000.06.26, Steffen Beyer wrote:
> >Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >
> >1> I think that the suggested name for the new OO interface,
> >1> Date::Object, is a Very Bad Choice. I severel
At 23.17 +0200 2000.06.26, Steffen Beyer wrote:
>Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
>1> I think that the suggested name for the new OO interface,
>1> Date::Object, is a Very Bad Choice. I severely dislike embedding
>
>Exactly *why* do you think so?
>
>1> either the interface style or the implementation s
