Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2022
Thanks for that, Neil. It makes perfect sense. I knew `module` was problematic, but given that the best alternative I had was `library`, I chose `module`. Suggestions welcome.
I'll see what people are doing on the CPAN.
Best,
Ovid/Curtis
--
IT consulting, training, specializing in Perl, databases, and agile development
http://www.allaroundtheworld.fr/.
Buy my book! - http://bit.ly/beginning_perl
On Friday, 11 February 2022, 10:52:36 CET, Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:
Hi Curtis,
We think there's definitely scope for improving Perl's support for creating modules of function libraries, and the import mechanism.
Some of what you proposed is effectively supported already with the `package Foo::Bar 0.001 { ... }` syntax.
There are a lot of modules on CPAN that solve different subsets of "the problem" (for example there are modules that use attributes for tagging functions for export), and your proposal feels like it's adding to that, rather than proposing a unified step forward.
So in its current form, we've marked this as rejected, but we think this is an area that's ripe for more thought. Part of that should include a review of CPAN and the problems with the current options. Finally, we agreed that in whatever form, we're not likely to ever accept a `module` keyword to mean "a collection of functions", given the established definition of "module".
Neil
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next