In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210292113380.11964-100000 / candle.superlink.net>,
dblack / candle.superlink.net wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:

>> But as I mentioned, if there's a definitive name, you have to think
>> more carefully about why you're writing a different module, and your
>> name should reflect what's distinctive about it. Consider
>> HTML::Parser, HTML::TokeParser and HTML::TreeBuilder. You can easily tell
>> that they're all HTML parsing libraries but they have distinctive styles.
> 
> Then again, if you're writing an HTML parser that does what
> HTML::Parser does, but does it (in your opinion) better, or faster, or
> whatever, then it's potentially a pain to have to find a synonym or
> near-synonym to use as a name.

Clearly HTML::MyBetterParser ;-)

Using CPAN is much like using Perl, you get so used to the way it works
and the bits to avoid that it eventually seems perfectly natural and a
reasonable pain / gain tradeoff. ( 1/2 :-)  

Mike

-- 
mike / stok.co.uk                    |           The "`Stok' disclaimers" apply.
http://www.stok.co.uk/~mike/       | GPG PGP Key      1024D/059913DA 
mike / exegenix.com                  | Fingerprint      0570 71CD 6790 7C28 3D60
http://www.exegenix.com/           |                  75D2 9EC4 C1C0 0599 13DA