NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Simplicity please? (Score:1)
This just doesn't look like the kind of thing that benefits by adding sugar.
Re:Simplicity please? (Score:2)
Regardless of whether or not you like it, the fact remains that tons of folks are actually using this module so if you can make it easier to use, that's a plus. Also, think of the work involved in making eval automatically die. In this case, I think the UNIVERSAL::require code is actually simpler.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Simplicity please? (Score:1)
That's hard? I gotta say, I'm really leery of adding more methods to UNIVERSAL::. There has to be a good reason and I kind of think UNIVERSAL::require might be a bad done. Maybe no one should have ever used that. ->require is at best, a class method and not something you'd want to be valid on an object. ->require is at best... maybe something that falls within the scope of something like Class::MOP.
Re:Simplicity please? (Score:2)
Agreed, it should be that simple, but frankly, if I'm working on a rotten code base with this ...
... the I want this ...
... or at least this ...
And frankly, this isn't really that bad. Yes, it would be far better if people explicitly checked the return calls. On the other hand, if done properly, these are exceptional events that should rarely occur. Thus, the occasional problem with having a less t