3/4/06, Mark <mark (AT) overmeer (DOT) netwrote:
thing which is playing in my head already for some time is:

Do we really want a translation from Perl5 modules into Perl6 on
a one-to-one basis? There are so many deceased modules occupying
beautiful name-spaces! Can we please re-arrange the name-spaces?

Could we try to kind-of pre-register name-spaces for perl6 modules?

There is no need to do such a thing, we have the 3 level naming scheme
in Perl 6 now.

Foo-0.0.1-cpan:JRANDM
- Stevan

3/5/06, Mark <solutions (AT) overmeer (DOT) netwrote:
* Stevan Little (stevan.little (AT) gmail (DOT) com) [060305 02:49]:
3/4/06, Mark <mark (AT) overmeer (DOT) netwrote:
Could we try to kind-of pre-register name-spaces for perl6 modules?

There is no need to do such a thing, we have the 3 level naming scheme
in Perl 6 now.
Foo-0.0.1-cpan:JRANDM

I know about the naming scheme, but I am not really looking forward
to the two new perl books "Perl DBI-(Any)-cpan:TIMB"
and "Perl DBI-(Any)-mailto:me (AT) example (DOT) com"

That you have the possibility to work your way out in namespace clashes
shouldn't directly mean that you let them happen easily. I would really
like to maintain a certain hierarchical name-space structure on CPAN, where
we strive for unique names, although can work around accidental collissions.

I agree completely, and to be honest, I think the three level
namespace will be more useful in the context of a single company
and/or application, and be used more for versioning that anything
else.

An other reason to have a kind of module/namespace pre-registration is to
see who is (planning to go) working on what. I think that's needed on the
moment.

Well, to start with, there is no
yet, so there is nothing to
pre-register for.

Second, Perl 6 is still (at the very least) a year away from a
(mostly) complete implementation, and that most likely will not be the
"official" one, and only a reference implementation that very few
people (read: audrey) will actually use in production. The official
version with Parrot and Ponie and few enough bugs to call 6.0.0 is
maybe a few years out from that. So pre-registration for namespaces in
an unfinished language is a litte premature IM

And lastly, I really don't like the idea anyway. It reminds me of the
domain-name squatters of the mid-90s. Just because I (with my best
intentions intact) decide that I want to write
World::Domination::Simple in 2006, does not mean that someone else in
2008+ should have to come up with another name because I registered
for the namespace I never used (and am unwilling to give up).

In addition, while I agree with you that there is some Perl 4/5 cruft
in CPAN that really should be tossed, this ignores the legacy apps
that might still need to use this code.

And as for stealing the good namespaces for writing new (and surely
better) but very different Perl 6 modules, I am not actually sure I
like that. course if the dream of Parrot/Ponie really works 100%,
then it will probably be a non-issue, but if it doesn't (and there is
yet to be a clear plan layed out as to how we will bridge Perl 5 ->
6), then updating legacy modules to Perl 6 might be something which
really needs to happen if people are going to be able to port their
larger Perl 5 code within a reasonable amount of time and effort.

This is especailly true for modules like File::Spec or Test::More,
which so many other modules just use as if they are part of the
language. I don't mind re-working my core module to use the new
whiz-bang features, but I would prefer to be able to automatically
(and mechanically) convert my test suite rather than have to covert to
some type off xUnit style tests or something.

Some things may just need to stay the same, namespace intact. Anything
else would IM further the Perl 5/6 gap that will inevitably exist
because of the depths of the language changes.
- Stevan