[PBP-pm] Reviewing PBP recommended modules?

[Darren Duncan]

A few miscellaneous replies ...

I strongly disagree with the idea of putting "PBP" in a module name 
just to say that it is conformant to what the book says.  Module 
names should fit based on their function mainly, and minor 
implementation details shouldn't factor in.  In fact, doing this 
would by itself violate a best naming practice.

If you want to have modules searchable by conformability, you can 
accomplish that if the modules mention it in their documentation, 
since CPAN lets you search for things based on their documentation.

In regards to the Perl6::* modules, their name choice is based on a 
different situation than finding PBP conformability.  They are 
specifically about implementing Perl 6 core language features in Perl 
5; using these are conceptually like using features that should be in 
the core language but aren't.  By contrast, most of CPAN is about 
extensions and add-ons, features that are conceptually not part of 
the core language.  And so they are named according to their add-on 
functionality type.

Separately, I do support the idea of working with CPAN module authors 
to improve their modules, including making them more like PBP 
recommends.  I would certainly want people to do that for my modules; 
despite my own efforts to apply PBP to my new work, I inevitably miss 
some good things.

-- Darren Duncan