Foo::Bar::Libfoobar vs. Libfoobar?

From	Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.lang.perl.modules
Subject	Foo::Bar::Libfoobar vs. Libfoobar?
Date	2013-07-21 22:41 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<87li4ztu17.fsf@violet.siamics.net> (permalink)

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

	I'm curious, what's the current preferred naming scheme for Perl
	bindings to C libraries?  Given such modules as GD or
	Image::Magick, I'd assume that the bindings for Libfoobar are
	ought to live in a module named Libfoobar.

	Somehow, however, I'd find it tempting to use a longer, yet more
	descriptive, Foo::Bar::Libfoobar; especially if there's a
	related Foo::Bar module already on CPAN, and that Foo::Bar would
	be the "proper" name for Libfoobar, should it be (re)implemented
	as a native Perl library.

	Perhaps there's anything else to consider?

	TIA.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

Back to comp.lang.perl.misc | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Foo::Bar::Libfoobar vs. Libfoobar? Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-21 22:41 +0000
  Re: Foo::Bar::Libfoobar vs. Libfoobar? George Mpouras <nospam.gravitalsun.noadsplease@hotmail.noads.com> - 2013-07-22 09:33 +0300
  Re: Foo::Bar::Libfoobar vs. Libfoobar? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-07-22 14:18 +0100
    Re: Foo::Bar::Libfoobar vs. Libfoobar? Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-22 13:49 +0000

csiph-web