I guess it would have been nice if you'd have posted a bug report. I realise that sometimes time constraints don't allow for writing up a sensible bug report with all necessary information, but if you really like the module that would have been the way to go IMO.
That's also my reaction to your OP, there are two good ways of constructively criticising a module. If you think it's irredeemably broken or ill conceived you can say so on cpanratings and give detailed reasons. Otherwise, if you think the module is good in principle but is lacking a feature or has a bug you can file a bug report/wishlist on RT and help the author improve it. Your notion of helping users pick the right module is a good one (and the wish of a more reliable quality rating for CPAN modules is often expressed), but ultimately it's more worthwhile to worry about the code rather than the "marketing" (used here in the loosest possible sense).
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
| [reply] |
What I need to add is that writing bug reports for bugs in source filters is sometimes very difficult, expecially if you don't want to send whole of your, perhaps emabarassing or difficult to explain, module.
| [reply] |