|
Re: Modest Proposal
by particle (Vicar) on Mar 03, 2004 at 17:20 UTC
|
surely, the scope of this task is not to be underestimated. to create and maintain a document describing each of the ever-changing and growing list of the thousands of modules, bundles, and scripts on the CPAN would take a great deal of patience, dedication, reason, and time. i don't believe the benefits of this task outweigh the amount of effort required to accomplish it.
however, if the gods see fit to add such a compendium to the resources already available at our inimitable monastery, i would like to suggest an entry for one of my favourite modules:
DBI: mostly harmless.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Acme:: there be puff the magic dragons
| [reply] |
Re: Modest Proposal
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Mar 03, 2004 at 17:24 UTC
|
That information is already available. It's downloaded as
sources/modules/03modlist.data.gz in your .cpan directory if you use perl -MCPAN -eshell, and is used by the CPAN.pm for several
functions, one of them describing what the module does.
Abigail | [reply] |
Re: Modest Proposal
by EvdB (Deacon) on Mar 03, 2004 at 17:21 UTC
|
I don't mean to be negative but what would this provide that http://search.cpan.org does not. It would seem that having this in two places would be redundant and be a maintenance nightmare.
--tidiness is the memory loss of environmental mnemonics
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re: Modest Proposal
by EdwardG (Vicar) on Mar 03, 2004 at 21:22 UTC
|
Oh, how disappointing. From the title I had expected something more, er, controversial.
Like this Modest Proposal, first published in 1729.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
| [reply] |
|
|
I'd have to say, I too was expecting something.. more. Swift++
| [reply] |
Re: Modest Proposal (reviews)
by grinder (Bishop) on Mar 03, 2004 at 17:47 UTC
|
This already exists in a certain form on Perlmonks, no need to invent anything new. It's called the Reviews section. (or more specifically, Module Reviews).
| [reply] |
Re: Modest Proposal
by Flame (Deacon) on Mar 03, 2004 at 20:12 UTC
|
Sorry, but isn't that what the "Abstract" section of the POD documentation is usually expected to provide?
My code doesn't have bugs, it just develops random features.
Flame
| [reply] |
Re: Modest Proposal (for a CPAN review function)
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Mar 04, 2004 at 16:30 UTC
|
Personally I see no reason why a Module Review function would be out of place here at the monastery. You could start your own by doing a post titled something like "CPAN REVIEW: DBI" (mostly harmless). But I would like to see it done right.
Having said that Im doubtful that those who really decide these things would be supportive of the idea. Unfortunately. All I can say is that if the gods are supportive then ill put some time in to make it work.
---
demerphq
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Gandhi
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Judging by the response so far, it doesn't look good. It occurred to me last night that I should have added an example or two, but I thought most would understand what I was talking about. I certainly didn't mean that this should replace searching CPAN---rather that it would make it easier to find the module(s) a person was looking for when they don't know the title, only the function. Just as a for instance, see Appendix A in Perl Pocket Reference. I'd particularly like it if the document was 'live' (i.e. html) and linked to CPAN. I suppose the thing to do is to go ahead and create an initial version, post it and see what happens. Thanks, BTW for the offer.
--hsm
"Never try to teach a pig to sing...it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
| [reply] |
