Re: Suggest a name for a module - Class::Struct::Persistent

Heard of SPOPS ^[
*
*
] ?
How is your module better/different than SPOPS?

Class::Struct:: is a bad namespace for your module (your module is not a subclass of Class::Struct now is it).
BTW, i'd like to suggest "Class::OP -- OP is for Object Persistence".

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.

Comment on Re: Suggest a name for a module - Class::Struct::Persistent

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Suggest a name for a module - Class::Struct::Persistent by herveus (Prior) on Jun 10, 2003 at 11:48 UTC
Howdy! (your module is not a subclass of Class::Struct now is it) Quibble: that is not quite the right formulation. It is not necessary for a hypothetical Class::Struct::Persistent to be a subclass of Class::Struct, although one would expect the functionality to be some sort of refinement of it. Subclass would only apply in the broad sense, not the specific, object-inheritance sense. ...now, that is not to say that Class::Struct::Persistent is the best name, but that's why this thread is here... yours, Michael	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Suggest a name for a module - Class::Struct::Persistent
by herveus (Prior) on Jun 10, 2003 at 11:48 UTC

(your module is not a subclass of Class::Struct now is it)

Quibble: that is not quite the right formulation. It is not necessary for a hypothetical Class::Struct::Persistent to be a subclass of Class::Struct, although one would expect the functionality to be some sort of refinement of it. Subclass would only apply in the broad sense, not the specific, object-inheritance sense.

...now, that is not to say that Class::Struct::Persistent is the best name, but that's why this thread is here...

yours,
Michael

[reply]