in reply to Re^2: RFC: Unix::Lsof
in thread RFC: Unix::Lsof

Though I prefer Unix::lsof (no, it doesn't look like a pragma, there is a capital 'U' -- at least that is the only motivation I could imagine for one capitalizing the 'l').

- tye        

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Unix::Lsof
by tirwhan (Abbot) on Feb 27, 2008 at 01:18 UTC

    That does make a lot of sense, but it seems to me to go against the common convention. Looking through the OS interface section of CPAN I find names like Unix::Syslog and Schedule::At, and only a very few modules that uses the Uppercase::lowercase schema. I guess this convention is not the be-all-end-all, but I personally know that I would find the name confusing, the reason being that I install a lot of the Perl modules I use via the Debian package management system. So if I saw a package called libunix-lsof-perl and installed it I would then try to look for the perldoc for Unix::Lsof first and only suspect a different capitalization if that failed.

    Another reason why I'm not entirely convinced this is appropriate is that the lsof man page itself capitalizes Lsof when it's at the beginning of a sentence, i.e. follows convention. Also, Unix::lsof::Result (which is the object returned from an lsof() run) looks a bit naff, doesn't it? ;-)

    But thank you a lot for the recommendation, I do think namespace is one of the most important thing to decide before registering a module, anybody else have an opinion on this?


    All dogma is stupid.