Re^2: Recursively walk up a directory tree

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Recursively walk up a directory tree by Anonymous Monk on Feb 10, 2018 at 17:41 UTC
I believe you actually meant "distribution" if I've understood what you meant correctly. Semantics, I know, but an important distinction. Hehe, OP posts some code and asks Is there anything more elegant than this? Yeah, its called a module. Instead of doing ... 20 lines to modify global variable ... do `use HideTwentyLines;` and elegance achieved	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Recursively walk up a directory tree by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Feb 10, 2018 at 20:33 UTC
Hidden and elegant are not synonymous. The `@INC` manipulation was a solid clue, as 1nickt confirmed, that modules might be a poor suggestion; especially wrapped in snark empty of discussion, caveat, or example. There is little less elegant, proper, or convincing than– a title –as a punchline. Unless it's The Aristocrats! of course.	[reply] [d/l]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^4: Recursively walk up a directory tree by 1nickt (Canon) on Feb 10, 2018 at 18:24 UTC
Yeah, its called a module. Given that the purpose of finding the base directory is to be able to add the lib directory to @INC, how do you suggest such a module could be loaded? The way forward always starts with a minimal test.	[reply]
Re^5: Recursively walk up a directory tree by Anonymous Monk on Feb 11, 2018 at 08:20 UTC
use FindBin... use lib $... use File::FindLib... Its like a prerequisite just as any ... Nawmean?	[reply]
Re^6: Recursively walk up a directory tree by 1nickt (Canon) on Feb 11, 2018 at 11:25 UTC
Re^7: Recursively walk up a directory tree by Anonymous Monk on Feb 11, 2018 at 12:20 UTC
Re^4: Recursively walk up a directory tree by stevieb (Canon) on Feb 10, 2018 at 17:44 UTC
Ok, I did misunderstand. I thought you were referring to packaging the code into a distribution :)	[reply]

elegance achieved

a title