Re: [wxperl-users] wxPerl::Constructors

[Eric W. <scr...@gm...>]

# from Mattia Barbon
# on Sunday 18 March 2007 10:50 pm:

>Any objections to wxPerl::Constructors?
>
>=A0 Not from me :-) you might want to ask for advice on module-authors
>before starting a new top-level namespace, though.

That's sort of a misconception about "top-level" namespaces.  In the=20
past, it's always been "just don't claim it all for yourself", so=20
"wxPerl::Foo" is fine, but "wxPerl.pm" might be a little audacious (as=20
in: "Behold! I have forged the one true wxPerl thingy!")

Thus, I think I'll go ahead and run with wxPerl::Constructors rather=20
than any more waiting around.

Of course, *you* would be the authority on whether "wxPerl.pm" was okay=20
to use.  If you later decide to bundle-up (or con somebody else into=20
doing it) all of the conveniences into one spot, that might be it.  At=20
that point, you could just require wxPerl::Constructors and have it all=20
available.

Thanks,
Eric
=2D-=20
The opinions expressed in this e-mail were randomly generated by
the computer and do not necessarily reflect the views of its owner.
=2D-Management
=2D--------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
=2D--------------------------------------------------