Re^2: RFC: Name and/or API for module ("Type::FromData")

Thank you for the name suggestion! I usually come up with three level names, but I am under the impression that they are considered too unwieldly by other people more adept with naming things. But I like the name...

I try to keep the functionality of generating SQL and executing SQL separate, as usually I prefer to review DDL and manually run it with a user that has the appropriate permissions. DBI might still be needed to import the appropriate SQL_ type constants, but that wouldn't imply the DBIx namespace for me.

Comment on Re^2: RFC: Name and/or API for module ("Type::FromData")

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: RFC: Name and/or API for module (SQL::Type::Guess++) by tye (Sage) on Apr 14, 2014 at 14:56 UTC
I think this is a good case for a 3-part name. I could see other modules ending up in the SQL::Type bucket. And SQL::Type::Guess is quite short and seems pretty precisely "on the nose" at the purpose of this module. - tye	[reply]
Re^3: RFC: Name and/or API for module ("Type::FromData") by chacham (Prior) on Apr 14, 2014 at 14:42 UTC
Perhaps you can use two different names. One for the actual name, being of three or more parts, another to group such things together. That is: SQL::Lazy (or just, Lazy, first adding Lazy::SQL). Then adding more modules to it be to truly lazy, (and eventually renaming it to Perl.:P )	[reply]