Re: MooseY namespace

I second Reverend Chip's comment.  Too much what its implemented with rather 
than what it does among module names. -- Darren Duncan

On 2013.06.09 8:26 PM, Reverend Chip wrote:
> 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
>
>