That means you guys can help me one more time :)

There's another Perl guy I've talked to about these modules (Paweł Król) who has written a library (D64::Disk::*) that uses Per Oloffson's C library. We batted around NAMESPACES a bit, and agreed on a package namespace for my stuff. BUT due to your helpfulness so far, I think a wise move would be to ask your opinions as well.

The package structure we like is:

Commodore::Disk:: * (7 common packages go here)
Commodore::Disk::Format:: * (8 format-specific packages go here)
[download]

The "common" packages have code that can read and write any Commodore disk image headers, directories, the BAM, handle entire images, extract sprites, and so on.

The "format-specific" packages each contain parametric data that describes the disk topology of a particular image, with two exceptions. The first exception is a package supporting the "X64" format, which by definition may itself encapsulate any valid Commodore disk image. The other exception is a package which manages CUSTOM disk images.

The "Commodore" namespace could grow, for example to support tape drive emulation, a driver to communicate with the C64's RS-232 port or the user port, and so on. I'm pretty sure Commodore doesn't have generic hardware, hence justifying the namespace.

Similarly, the "Commodore::Disk" namespace could grow, for example if somebody writes a package that interfaces with the Raspberry Pi kernal hack that does Commodore disk I/O via its GPIO pins. Yes, I'm thinking about it.

Anyhow, I've babbled on too long, and by now I've bored you with the obvious: the package structure. Anyone have some good constructive criticism for me?

Thank you all again. I appreciate the feedback (and of course I've really liked the positive feedback!)