First no offense was meant, if was a feeble attempt at humour. It seemed funny at the time.

Secondly the problem is a warning. With your (or my solution) of hacking the modules symbol table you get a new warning as soon as the module is patched with a DESTROY() method vis:

package Chatbot::Eliza;

sub new { bless {}, shift }
sub DESTROY {}

package Foo;

use warnings;
sub Chatbot::Eliza::DESTROY {}

__DATA__
Subroutine Chatbot::Eliza::DESTROY redefined at script line 9 .
[download]

Thus by patching your code you generate a new warning when the module is eventually patched. Hence my point - fix the problem at its root not the symptom.

cheers

tachyon

s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

Of course you could/should drop a note at the author's address, but my experience is that new versions are not released within a month.

I really depends on the module. Most module author will at least accept a patch and include it in the next version, so you can use the pactched module knowing that the patch will still be applicable in the future. Some authors also maintain a development version of modules, and some just release a new version any time a bug is found.

So really sending a note to the author is the most efficient, polite, not to mention ethical thing to do, this is what Open-SOurce is all about!

So really sending a note to the author is the most efficient, polite, not to mention ethical thing to do, this is what Open-SOurce is all about!

I would second that. With most of the modules that I maintain I am likely to make a release within a couple of days if the patch warrants it - occasionally it might be longer if the patch won't aply or there is extra work required on the documentation or whatever. Occasionally I might sit on a patch for a while if I am not sure if I agree with what it is trying to do of course. And then there is always that nasty work stuff using up all my time ...

/J\