Hmm, this seems to have stirred up a hornets' nest, sorry. Let me try to pull
together a few threads.
doy, what *would* you name Moose::Role::Matcher if you were to release it today?
Dave Rolsky you said, 'there's multiple role systems on CPAN, so Role !=
Moose'. so, might we distinguish it by
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, ian.doche...@nomura.com wrote:
Does FSA::MooseRole satisfy everyone (or no-one)?
I hate it. It seems like unnecessary noise.
If the distinguishing feature of this code is that it is a role, then
name it FSA::Role or FSA::Rules::Role or something. In that
Am 21.09.2011 um 13:18 schrieb Hans Dieter Pearcey:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, ian.doche...@nomura.com wrote:
Does FSA::MooseRole satisfy everyone (or no-one)?
I hate it. It seems like unnecessary noise.
If the distinguishing feature of this code is that it is a role, then
name
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Moritz Onken on...@netcubed.de wrote:
The question is, how would someone name his dist who wants to release a
version of FSA::Role, which uses Role::Basic as Role framework?
FSA::Role::Basic
It's a useful piece of information at that point, unlike slapping
mo wrote:
The question is, how would someone name his dist who wants to release a
version of FSA::Role, which uses Role::Basic as Role framework?
I think we need something like Any::Role :-)
So that implies FSA::Role::Moose for my module, which I don't think would
satisfy hdp.
If there is
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:04 AM, ian.doche...@nomura.com wrote:
So you are implying that
FSA::Role::Moose
Would be acceptable to you too?
Yes, if there were some existing non-Moose FSA::Role that you needed
to distinguish your version from.
Otherwise it's pointless. Imagine if everyone
On 11-09-21 07:24 AM, Moritz Onken wrote:
The question is, how would someone name his dist who wants to release a
version of FSA::Role, which uses Role::Basic as Role framework?
If it inherits from Role::Basic, shouldn't it be named Role::FSA?
I think we need something like Any::Role :-)
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, ian.doche...@nomura.com wrote:
Does FSA::MooseRole satisfy everyone (or no-one)?
So I am wondering, why have 'Role' in the name at all?
On Sep 21, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote:
If the distinguishing feature of this code is that it is a role,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Stevan Little
stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com wrote:
I suspect that actually, that the distinguishing feature of this code is that
it is an FSA and not a Role. The fact it is a Role only means you can not
instantiate it directly and must compose it into a
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, ian.doche...@nomura.com wrote:
CPAN modules that have 'Role' in their namespace (referring to Moose Roles)
Antispam::Toolkit::Role::BerkeleyDB
Well, this is part of a larger distro called Antispam::Toolkit. Nobody is
going to try to install
Sorry Dave, I read the pod, not the code, to come to that conclusion. :(
From your own example however, it seems you are happy with 'Role' appearing in
the namespace?
For what it is worth, I am now almost certain the name for my module will be.
FSA::Engine 'A Moose Role to convert an object
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, ian.doche...@nomura.com wrote:
Sorry Dave, I read the pod, not the code, to come to that conclusion. :(
From your own example however, it seems you are happy with 'Role' appearing in
the namespace?
Again, this is a different case. I put Role in the namespace when the
From: Dave Rolsky [mailto:auta...@urth.org]
For what it is worth, I am now almost certain the name for my module will be.
FSA::Engine 'A Moose Role to convert an object into a Finite State Machine'
I think that's best.
[Ian replied.]
Finally! :)
Thanks everyone for your very helpful
13 matches
Mail list logo
