Re: Naming convention for "Moosified" CPAN modules
[email protected] (Dave Rolsky)
| Newsgroups | perl.moose |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, Jim Bacon wrote: > I have a module on CPAN that I want to add a Moose version to. What is the > naming convention for this? There isn't one, because this doesn't make much sense. There's really not any huge benefit to having a Moosified version for end users. The benefits to using Moose are primarily for the original author. If Moose makes your life easier, you should consider using it. Having two implementations of the same module doesn't seem useful. Generally speaking, naming modules after a specific implementation choice is a bad idea. People care about what it does, not how. The big exception is when you provide both a pure Perl and XS implementation of a module, but even then you can use tools like Module::Implementation to present a single API to the world. -dave /*============================================================ http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless) ============================================================*/