Re: Re: use CGI and die;

I have, no problem discarding them when it makes sense.

Nor do I. Bug CGI.pm doesn't use them at all, mostly because of legacy code. For similar legacy reasons, subclassing CGI.pm is a nightmare (see the link Ovid posted above), so that isn't a practical alternative to the HTML subroutines.

And yes, I would very much like to see lighter alternative (like CGI::Lite) in the core. The parent node's title to the contrary (that was just a cute pun on a well-known node), I don't think CGI.pm is so awful that it should go the way of symbolic refs. Rather, I think it's funcationality has been surpassed by alternatives.

----
I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

Comment on Re: Re: use CGI and die;

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: use CGI and die; by shotgunefx (Parson) on Jun 10, 2003 at 19:43 UTC
While it is not pretty, I've subclassed it many times and while I wouldn't quite describe it as a nightmare, it's certainly not simple. I got the title reference, hard to miss in this place. It's one of the few things that irk me here. "This or DIE" and "BLAH considered harmful", I think it's almost all good when used appropriately. -Lee "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."	[reply]