Re: package Foo; isa Bar; why not?

Aside from slightly different syntax, why should this go in the core when base is already there and already does the same thing and more?

Comment on Re: package Foo; isa Bar; why not?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: package Foo; isa Bar; why not? by liz (Monsignor) on Dec 19, 2003 at 09:14 UTC
It's the and more thing I don't like about base.pm. If you just need `base.pm` for setting `@ISA` at compile time, it's a lot of baggage that you're schlepping along. And on the other hand, `base.pm` is not doing enough: if you need a module's import method called, you still need to either `use` the module with the right parameters before calling `base.pm`, or you need to call the import yourself afterwards. So yes, I don't like `base.pm`. Liz	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: package Foo; isa Bar; why not?
by liz (Monsignor) on Dec 19, 2003 at 09:14 UTC

and more

base.pm

@ISA

And on the other hand, base.pm is not doing enough: if you need a module's import method called, you still need to either use the module with the right parameters before calling base.pm, or you need to call the import yourself afterwards.

So yes, I don't like base.pm.

Liz

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]