[Pdx-pm] Getopt::Modern

[Austin Schutz]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:10:32PM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> --- Austin Schutz <tex at off.org> wrote:
> > 	I must be getting too old. I'm starting to think
> > net::sbcglobal::Getopt and alias as Getopt sounds like a good idea.
> > 	Maybe I'm just spending too much time with the java weenies.
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I often thought that creating package names
> from reversed domain names was a big bucket of stupid.  When people
> from four companies release conceptually similar modules, perhaps even
> inheriting from/delegating to one another, the names make life much
> more confusing.
>  

	Yes, if they inherit or delegate from each other and keep identical
names, it can cause confusion. Though.. having different names for the same
thing doesn't really help that situation, does it?

	I like it when four different companies are able to release the same
thing without having a namespace collision, especially when they are packaging
up some larger framework. If the modules really do have similar functionality,
I can compare and contrast them to see what will work for me - or use both
without fear of collisions.

	I dunno, but I find it a bummer that people a. have to come up with
something clever to mean what they want but not say it explicitly, and
b. can't have concise names or "top level" modules because the modules list
people don't like them and will debate endlessly about what the best answer
is to 'a'.

	*shrug*.. of course it's really just a matter of convention. There's
nothing to say that people _can't_ do it that way, they just _don't_.

	Of course in C++ (java too?) you can dump something into your namespace
without fouling everyone else's. Not sure about perl's alias. Maybe you might
know something about that. :-)

	Austin