>
>
> As we note in the guidelines, "Lite" is a poor choice because it
> doesn't say how it is lighterweight and what you're leaving out.
>
>
Okay. Would any of the following be acceptable?
::Core, ::CorePerl, ::Independent, ::Mooseless
Rick Yakubowski
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article , Rick
Yakubowski wrote:
> I definitely wanted feedback from the list due to the naming guidelines.
> However, I thought ::Lite might actually be applicable in this case.
As w
Mr. Foy,
Thank you for your reply.
I definitely wanted feedback from the list due to the naming guidelines.
However, I thought ::Lite might actually be applicable in this case. As I
mentioned earlier, my module keeps itself dependent on core Perl and offers
a more common set of geo coordinate fun
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article , Rick
Yakubowski wrote:
> I have written a simple module that I would like to include in the Geo::Calc
> namespace on CPAN called Geo::Calc::Lite.
We generally don't like ::L
Hello,
I have written a simple module that I would like to include in the Geo::Calc
namespace on CPAN called Geo::Calc::Lite.
It offers a lighter set of dependencies than Geo::Calc, requiring only core
Perl modules (Carp, Exporter, and Math::Trig), and does not use anything
heavy like Moose. It o
