The problem is that I've already invested heavily in Foo.pm. So, in order to do this, I'd have to copy the module over, delete the already existing code, and change the name of the module not only in the package statement, but the POD as well. Repeat for the testing. It just seems rather silly that h2xs (and Module::Starter from what I've seen of it) assume that you'll know every class that will go into a distribution at the time of creation. CWould it be a bad idea to rework these tools so that instead of failing to create a file, it would test for existance first and if it exists say something like "Foo.pm skipped: already exists"? If it's not a bad idea, then I could even do the work. Ah...to see my name somewhere "official"...
thor
Feel the white light, the light within
Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will
For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come
| [reply] |
I think I messed the question. You have a module created with lib/Foo.pm Your module is named Foo. Then you like to extend Foo with Foo::Bar ( or at least add a module Bar. ) Then there is no need to change anything just add a new dir to your lib directory.
lib/Foo.pm
lib/Foo/Bar.pm
If you want to rename something try perl's inplace edit or look if Module::Rename can help.
| [reply] [d/l] |
You're right...there's no need to change anything. What I'm looking for is the stub code generation that h2xs and Module::Starter provide. I just think that it's interesting that there's seemingly no way to get this from the currently existing toolset.
thor
Feel the white light, the light within
Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will
For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come
| [reply] |