Re^4: Is there an official regex for checking module names?

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

Comment on Re^4: Is there an official regex for checking module names? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]