I am curious as to the current state of thinking regarding the Tie:: namespace.
On the modulelist most ties seem to named 'naturally' according to their function such as
Whereas the less natural but more OOish might have beenTie::IxHash or Tie:SubstrHash
(personally I might even suggest restructuring the Tie:: namespace into their components and keeping stubs that use the @ISA relationship to refer to the reorganized classes. I _might_ suggest this because as people contribute more and more tie classes the flat nature of the namespace is going to get quite polluted indeed, I *won't* of course because suggesting such a thing would get me lynched...) (Oops! :-)Tie::Hash::Indexed (Tie::Hash::Ix??) and Tie::Hash::Substr
Now my question is for a new Tie that I am about to submit to cpan should I go along with the former or the later scheme?
FYI: The module I want to submit is a hash implemented using tries, similer to Tree::Trie (actually mine impleements Tree::Trie as well) but with a tie interface as well as an OO interface. So should this be called Tie::TrieHash or Tie::Hash::Trie My personal 'gut' feeling is that the latter makes more sense, but I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter from anyone out there.
Yves
--
You are not ready to use symrefs unless you already know why they are bad. -- tadmc (CLPM)
In reply to How to choose a Tie:: 's name by demerphq
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |