That's correct and consistent for any required module, because you use a full qualified path to the function which was loaded.
I'd call this bad style in the case of a general module like POSIX though, because there is no harm in explicitly reloading it again if needed in the current module. It's an NO-OP if it's already loaded, and essential if not.
There are groups of modules/classes which are so deeply intertwined that it's not only OK but explicitly documented in the main module, to make calls to dependencies.
The magic word here is explicit
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
see Wikisyntax for the Monastery
In reply to Re^5: What's so wrong with this (dereferencing)code?
by LanX
in thread What's so wrong with this (dereferencing)code?
by Maelstrom
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |