Re^3: Is there an official regex for checking module names?

I'm familiar with "::" but it wouldn't pass code review (cleverness reducing readability)

No, it's not being clever.

Do you write package main::Foo::Bar; or package Foo::Bar;? So why do you expect me to use %main:: instead of %::? If I want the root namespace, that's what I use. Not some alias created so you can say "scripts run in main".

Also, using Foo::->method instead of Foo->method solves a real problem. Again, not cleverness.

While "_a" probably wouldn't pass code review (non-meaningful name) it does match the pattern

oops! I saw the pattern for the lead character was shorter, and I somehow imagined that "_" wasn't included.

As already stated, non-ASCII names are disallowed ($work constraint).

That was not mentioned in the question. And you're not the only person using PerlMonks.

Comment on Re^3: Is there an official regex for checking module names? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Is there an official regex for checking module names? by kcott (Archbishop) on Feb 09, 2022 at 02:28 UTC
I believe you have taken my comment about "`::`" completely out of context. You wrote "`package ::`" which is very obscure — I actually don't think I've seen it previously — for $work, I'd expect "`package main`", which is common and generally understood. "So why do you expect me to use `%main::` instead of `%::`?" I've no idea where that comes from. I did not voice such an expectation of you or anyone else. "Also, using Foo::->method ..." Again, I've no idea where that comes from; it wasn't mentioned in my post. In fact, I encourage the use of "`::->`" over just "`->`". "That was not mentioned in the question." My reply to you had "As mentioned, ...". "And you're not the only person using PerlMonks." Why write that? — Ken	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Is there an official regex for checking module names? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2022 at 15:17 UTC
I've no idea where that comes from. You said using package `::` wouldn't pass review. («I'm familiar with "::" but it wouldn't pass code review») So it means that `%::` wouldn't pass review. Again, I've no idea where that comes from; it wasn't mentioned in my post. True, but you said `::` and `aaaa::::::bbbb` wouldn't pass review, so I extrapolated that `Foo::` wouldn't either. Why write that? The comment to which I replied assumed replies to your posts are only for your benefit. My reply to you had "As mentioned, ...". And I said that that this is irrelevant. Not everything is about you. You asked how to check if something is legitimate package name, and that was an important part of that.	[reply] [d/l] [select]