develooper Front page | perl.cpan.workers | Postings from May 2015

Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelinesusing CPAN and POD

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Kent Fredric
Date:
May 6, 2015 09:27
Subject:
Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelinesusing CPAN and POD
Message ID:
CAATnKFAWU6ipsHjC6kYz+dTHXyJ+gPzRgLnk9pt2rzTWCpzJiw@mail.gmail.com
On 6 May 2015 at 21:08, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) <philippe.bruhat@free.fr>
wrote:

> Going back to the original proposal, the distrinction between "Org"
> and "Project" seems actually minimal. So, the split would really be
> between "authors" and "organizations". And actually, Project::Perl and
> Project::Toolchain doesn't sound that bad either.
>

Also, another way to think of it is Orgs are essentially external to CPAN,
while projects are essentially internal.

For instance, P5P and Toolchain have influence on stuff on CPAN, but
they're not exactly namespaces or systems of specific named sets of code on
CPAN. There's no modules named "Toolchain" or "P5P"

Whereas all the examples of Projects listed lie firmly on perl module name
boundaries, Moose is a package name, and there are moose packages. DBIC is
essentially an abbreviation for a package name, and it pertains to specific
packages tailored to that package name.

That's a pretty distinct line. =)

-- 
Kent

*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About