On the lighter side -- along the lines of noting how we "park on a driveway and drive on a parkway": over the weekend, in pondering the role that symbol exporting plays or should play in Perl OO design (c.f. Spiffy), it struck me as amusing that when I want some module to export its functions into a mine, I call that module's "import" sub, which is provided by a module called the "Exporter".
Anyone know the original rationale for this? For such a linguistically sensitive language as Perl, I'm surprised. Unless it came out of the flirtation with indirect object syntax:
require SomeModule; import SomeModule;
-xdg
Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.
In reply to Irony of import by xdg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |