Completely agreeing and pointing out so to underline the nice way into which you put this concept, which is often implicit!
Actually, I merely rephrased that. I can't recall whom I cite it from and the exact word per word.
I'm not really sure if I understand what you mean. You are aware that in Perl 5 Foo::Bar::Baz bears no relationship to Foo::Bar, arent' you? What do you mean with "nested"?
Yes I am aware. That's just what I exactly meant by "nested", I can have Foo::Bar
instead of Foo_Bar
(no nested here). I didn't indicate anything between 'nested package name' and 'package relationship'. It's clear that Foo_Bar
are all under the same namespace, while Bar
is under Foo
is under Foo::Bar
. But I do take advantage that I can arrange some classes/packages stucture within a suite of modules.
Oh, inimitable but not unimprovable. Indeed Rules smell like they will be impressive. More power and more clarity at the same time!
Thanks for the correction :-) That was not a typo, it was a mispell.
Thank you, it's indeed in perlsyn
Do you really see that as particularly perlish? I'm currently a Perl-only kinda guy, but I would rather qualify it as quality typical of most modern enough programming languages that are serious about themselves...
At least based on my limited knowledge about other languages. I consider it as Perl's strength in providing high-granular variable scoping: file, package, block, inner-block, inner-inner-block, etc.
Open source softwares? Share and enjoy. Make profit from them if you can. Yet, share and enjoy!