•Re: Pseudo-switch question

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Pseudo-switch question (bull) by tye (Sage) on Jul 22, 2003 at 16:57 UTC
Because... it can break correct, otherwise working code Well. I guess one reason is enough in this case. Update: I'd rather it were named Acme::Switch. It isn't really appropriate for use in production, IMO. - tye	[reply]
Re: Re^2: Pseudo-switch question (bull) by Anonymous Monk on Jul 22, 2003 at 18:24 UTC
Mind giving an example? I've never seen it break code, unless you try to break it on purpose. And just because a module is implemented a bit oddly dosen't mean it's a gag module.	[reply]
Re^4: Pseudo-switch question (bull) by tye (Sage) on Jul 22, 2003 at 18:41 UTC
A quick search turned up Switch.pm gotchas? but there was also a thread just a couple of days ago where __DATA__ just doesn't work if you `use Switch`. I have no desire to use such so I don't keep up-to-date on exactly why I shouldn't. And just because a module is implemented a bit oddly dosen't mean it's a gag module. Thanks for guessing at what my reasons for thinking it should be renamed are. Sorry, wrong guess. Would you like to try again? Oh, wait! I already gave my reason. Imagine that. - tye	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Pseudo-switch question (bull) by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jul 23, 2003 at 01:40 UTC
problems with reading __DATA__ from current package Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: •Re: Pseudo-switch question by fletcher_the_dog (Friar) on Jul 22, 2003 at 16:22 UTC
I would but I can't guarentee that all the machines that will run my scripts will have perl 5.8 or the filter modules that "Switch" requires.	[reply]
•Re: Re: •Re: Pseudo-switch question by merlyn (Sage) on Jul 22, 2003 at 16:36 UTC
Well, that's what PAR is for. Or just include Switch with your distribution. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply]