I personally believe that you could use the "code in @INC" feature I mentioned in the very root node of this thread. But then it wouldn't be suitable to only work out a package statement, since it is precisely designed to deal with full modules...
Some (old) posts of mine in which I dealt with the technique:
In reply to Re^2: How not to hardcode a package name?
by blazar
in thread How not to hardcode a package name?
by blazar
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |