Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer

Re^2: Regrettable module names

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Jul 05, 2004 at 22:45 UTC ( #371986=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Regrettable module names
in thread Regrettable module names

And here we see why broadly-offered criticism is risky.

Take a look at Tie::Static which is one of your "outright badly named" modules. But take a closer look at it and tell me the better name that it should have, noting carefully that it handles scalars, arrays and hashes.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Regrettable module names
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jul 06, 2004 at 08:14 UTC

    And here we see why broadly-offered criticism is risky.

    On the contrary I specifically mentioned that there would be a few such modules included in the "bad list":

      And there are probably a few in there that cant be better named because they have some special extra property, but even still I think the namespace is a just a big mess.

    So I think I preemptively resolved this point. Anyway, IMO that module should be named Tie::Any::Static or something along those lines. In fact, in my eyes the fact you cant tell that module can handle any type of tie just by looking at the name says to me its badly named.


      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
      -- Gandhi

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://371986]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2018-05-25 00:18 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?