Re^9: 'do' command is dead? Surely not?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: 'do' command is dead? Surely not? by Corion (Patriarch) on May 20, 2017 at 09:31 UTC
If a module can use several optional components or, for example, uses Module::Pluggable, then a module not specified by the original author can very well be loaded. See JSON::Any, Mouse, Module::Pluggable.	[reply]
Re^11: 'do' command is dead? Surely not? by Anonymous Monk on May 25, 2017 at 00:12 UTC
If the original author used Module::Pluggable, but did not remove '.' from @INC, then the original author intended to load unspecified modules on purpose from '.' There is no contradiction	[reply]
Re^12: 'do' command is dead? Surely not? by Corion (Patriarch) on Jun 01, 2017 at 07:14 UTC
It seems that also `apt-get` did load files from /tmp, which likely was not the intended consequence. It was arguably a bug in apt-get, but making the intent explicit is certainly the better approach here.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^10: 'do' command is dead? Surely not? by dsheroh (Monsignor) on May 20, 2017 at 09:12 UTC
Yes, the program does expect the module to exist. But that expectation can be incorrect. I don't know about you, but I frequently get Perl code (usually things written by coworkers...) which doesn't properly document its dependencies, resulting in attempts to load modules which aren't installed on the machine.	[reply]