Re: MooseY namespace

Might it be better simply to name the class what it does, and have its
moosey-ness go unnamed?  Imagine if we started naming things "OO::" when
we started using classes, and never stopped.

On 6/8/2013 3:47 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> so at YAPC it was again mentioned that you shouldn't use MooseX for
> things that don't actually extend moose. It occurred to me that MooseY
> might actually make for a good namespace for things that aren't really
> big enough to stand on their own, and are really only applicable in
> the context of Moose, such as roles, non moose subclasses,  etc.
>
> MooseY because Y is after X and because some of these things make
> sense to call them "Moosey"
>
> Does anyone having any opinions on this?
>
> --
> Caleb Cushing
>
> http://xenoterracide.com