The standard library (and other modules that follow the
General::Specific style) also fit the model that CPAN uses, which has
proven itself quite scalable up to thousands of packages.

I think it would be better to encourage highly-descriptive package
names; if anything, it seems that it would be better for authors of
packages which fit the same niche to discover the potential overlap
sooner, rather than later, so that redundant work could be minimized.

Lennon

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:28:31 +0900, Gavin Sinclair
<gsinclair / soyabean.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 1:28:40 AM, David wrote:
> 
> > Hi --
> 
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> "David A. Black" <dblack / wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407120755490.11648-100000 / wobblini...
> >> >
> >> > I would emulate the built-in/standard library style as much as
> >> > possible, i.e., no company names and a General::Specific::MoreSpecific
> >> > nest.
> >> >
> >> > If company names absolutely must enter into it, it would be better to
> >> > put them at the other end; I'd rather "require
> >> > 'xml/parsers/AcmeXMLCo'" than 'AcmeXMLCo/xml/parser'.  The former is
> >> > not ideal, but it's less disruptive and less ungainly than the latter.
> >>
> >> But having the company name as prefix makes installation easier, because
> >> otherwise if your package consists of several modules you'll have to
> >> manage several sub folders.
> 
> > Yes, but all for the common good.  I don't see the names of Matz's
> > company, or those of other core developers, in the standard library.
> 
> The standard library should be considered a special case, IMO.  I'm
> not advocating a particular naming format here, just making that
> point.
> 
> Gavin
> 
>