Really, it's all up to you. I definitely see different functionality from CGI::Debug, but contacting the author certainly wouldn't hurt. Why not ask the author himself if this is appropriate for another module or whether he believes that his implementation could support yours easily in a future release or with CGI::Debug::Vars (which obviously doesn't exist, so dont click it)? I certainly find your code useful to ALL CGI coders, so I would try to imagine if this code SHOULD be combined with CGI::Debug. Open it up and look if the current manner of implementation looks similar. Could this code involve a quick function call or is it better off as a complete object/package (even potentially a subclass of CGI::Debug (which I believe, is not)? Your object seems to contain very feature-specific data which i would easily throw in a package and be quite content about. Since you yourself have doubts about whether this is relevant to CGI::Debug, I would consider the matter settled, but it's probably worth your time to ask the author about it. Unfortunately, the name of CGI::Debug is already taken and your package is certainly not a subclass of CGI::Debug, so it's pretty evident that your current naming scheme is most descriptive.

AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the comments made by AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.