in reply to •Re: Pseudo-switch question
in thread Pseudo-switch question

Because...

  1. 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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

      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]
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom