Re^2: Namespace for local/internal modules?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Namespace for local/internal modules? by tobyink (Canon) on May 24, 2012 at 07:59 UTC
`s/rule/strong convention/` `perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Namespace for local/internal modules? by Anonymous Monk on May 24, 2012 at 09:25 UTC
Yes, I knew you wanted to say "convention", but it simply isn't a convention much less a "strong convention" You may have a rule for this, but it isn't widespread	[reply]
Re^5: Namespace for local/internal modules? by Anonymous Monk on May 24, 2012 at 09:33 UTC
Hmm, perlmodlib does suggest If developing modules for private internal or project specific use, that will never be released to the public, then you should ensure that their names will not clash with any future public module. You can do this either by using the reserved Local::* category or by using a category name that includes an underscore like Foo_Corp::*. So that is as close to official as you can get	[reply]
Re^6: Namespace for local/internal modules? by tobyink (Canon) on May 24, 2012 at 12:22 UTC