in reply to Re: proposed module: Math::Polyhedra
in thread proposed module: Math::Polyhedra

Is this a general consensus? If yes, I find it a pity. I don't mind having that kind of posts here. Often, the authors will supply code examples or discuss fringe issues, thus eliciting useful comments from the community. I find it a good idea for prospective CPAN authors to seek wisdom here. Of course, that is a supplement, not a subsitute for writing to modules at

  • Comment on Re: Re: proposed module: Math::Polyhedra

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: proposed module: Math::Polyhedra
by halley (Prior) on May 05, 2003 at 14:19 UTC

    I sent the same message to as per the usual PAUSE procedure. Since the CPAN search was turning up nothing for what I thought would be a well-traveled space, I wanted to mention it here at the same time for a wider range of discussion. The modules email list isn't a discussion community, it's a write-only system.

    As an aside, seems to find the Image::Info pod page for the search terms 'polyhedra' or 'polyhedron', though neither word appears there. It doesn't even give a search-results page with a link, it just dives into that unrelated pod. Who can say why?

    I'd hate to find out that CPAN's search merely skipped finding an existing Math::Geometry::Phi::Defined::3D::Shapes or something. Keep CPAN beautiful.

    [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Re: Re: Re: proposed module: Math::Polyhedra
by hardburn (Abbot) on May 05, 2003 at 14:18 UTC

    Oh, of course. I only wanted to point out that using the modules non-list is the main point for dicussing name space stuff. I highly encourage module authors to discuss their modules.

    I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
    -- Schemer

    Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated