Re: Forcing IPv6 onto existing modules

I also think that you should upload to CPAN.

I don't have a suggested name, but I don't like the monkey patching suggestion. Even though I know what "monkey patching" is, I don't think I'd think to look for this kind of thing named that. IPv6::Force actually makes more sense to me. I think putting it under IO::Socket::INET6::... makes sense because IPv6 users would already be aware of IO::Socket::INET6 as a name for IPv6-related stuff.

Comment on Re: Forcing IPv6 onto existing modules Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Forcing IPv6 onto existing modules by GrandFather (Saint) on Dec 17, 2008 at 19:47 UTC
I agree about not using 'monkey patching' as a component in the name. It's not a term I'd heard before and the fact that Moritz felt the term required further explanation is doubly damning. I doubt that creating an IPv6 top level name space is likely to happen, but IO::Socket::INET6::Force is quite compelling - INET6 searches would find it as would IO::Socket related searches. Perl's payment curve coincides with its learning curve.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Forcing IPv6 onto existing modules
by GrandFather (Saint) on Dec 17, 2008 at 19:47 UTC

I agree about not using 'monkey patching' as a component in the name. It's not a term I'd heard before and the fact that Moritz felt the term required further explanation is doubly damning.

I doubt that creating an IPv6 top level name space is likely to happen, but IO::Socket::INET6::Force is quite compelling - INET6 searches would find it as would IO::Socket related searches.

Perl's payment curve coincides with its learning curve.

[reply]