I put XML::Smart following the style of XML::Simple... and I still like the name XML::Smart. Unless I find a better name, that have a better mean for the use too, I will keep it.

For now I don't think that XML::MultiType really show what it does. But thanks for the opinion. ;-P

Graciliano M. P.
"The creativity is the expression of the liberty".

Although "Simple" shares some of the same problems with "Smart", there is at least the posibility of making an unbiased judgement that the module provides a much simpler interface (and so is also not as powerful). So "Simple" conveys something useful: "Use this if you find the other modules too complicated and you don't need as much power". And "Simple" should only be used when the degree of simplification is quite large.

You also see that "Simple" is not saying the module is "Better".

Naming modules can be difficult. It is best to take the time and effort to come up with an appropriate name before you release it. "Unless I find a better name" doesn't make it sound like you are spending the effort to come up with a better one.

I'm glad you "like" the name "Smart". Why is that not a surprise? "My module is smart" is not something I expect an author to find distasteful. Also note that it is easy to have a "blind spot" toward one's own work.

Please make the effort to come up with a more descriptive name for your module rather than "punting" with a name that praises your own work in a most generic way.

                - tye

Easy man, I haven't released it yet! I'm just showing it here first.

doesn't make it sound like you are spending the effort to come up with a better one.

I won't make much effort to find a name, since I think that the best way is to keep the mind free, and the name comes. This is just the way that I work, but doesn't mean that I don't want to find a better name.

But if the problem is just the name, I'm glad, since I think that the module, or what it does, is more important. ;-P

Graciliano M. P.
"The creativity is the expression of the liberty".

I strongly dislike "XML::Smart" too.

I think the most succint and expressive name for this module would be XML::DWIM.

There is no XML::Easy yet either. That name is distinct from XML::Simple enough to distinguish them (what's easy is not necessarily simple, and vice versa).

Both of these actually describe your goal, whereas "smart" does not.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Even better - XML::XPathish. gmpassos is enabling a few of the XPath axes using perl idioms. Its not really an XPath implementation but it goes part of the way there. Or XML::NotQuiteXPathButSimilar.

I also thought that XML::DWIM might be a better choice.

*yuck* I really dislike all the names suggested so far. XML::MultiType may make sense on some level, as would XML::DWIM, as would most of the suggestions, but neither really convey that what this module does is create a tree of perl datastructures out of xml, which is why i'd like to suggest something along the lines of
• XML::DataTree
• XML::Tree
• XML::PerlData
• XML::PerlDataTree
• XML::MultiObjectTree
• XML::MultiTypeTree
• XML::ArrayHashMonster ;P
• XML::ArrayHashTree
Hmm, I guess XML::MultiType is starting to sound more appealing, but i'm still leaning towars XML::PerlData ... hmm, perldata. hmm ,perldsc. hmm, perllol.

MJD says you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo! I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6x+5.8x. I take requests. ** The Third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.