Re^2: File::Find managing the %options versus \&wanted dichotomy

When testing your suggestion, it's true I didn't get a warning. I got a fatal error instead:

perl -e 'use File::Find; no warnings 'File::Find'; @fred = ( $ENV{ AC_
+SYSTEM } ); find wanted => undef(), @fred;'
[download]

produced

unknown warnings category 'File::Find' at -e line 1
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1.
[download]

But more to the point, if it's less code to write when you don't use the module, why bother?

One world, one people

Comment on Re^2: File::Find managing the %options versus \&wanted dichotomy Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: File::Find managing the %options versus \&wanted dichotomy by bmann (Priest) on Aug 18, 2005 at 17:23 UTC
You must be using 5.6, right? My version of warnings with 5.8.7 is 1.09, with 5.6.1 there is no version number and it doesn't allow you to suppress warnings:( But more to the point, if it's less code to write when you don't use the module, why bother? I bother because File::Find handles things like symlinks without me having to think about it. I prefer peer tested, "correct" code to "short" code any time. (That last sentence is about my code, not a criticism of yours.)	[reply]
Re^4: File::Find managing the %options versus \&wanted dichotomy by anonymized user 468275 (Curate) on Aug 22, 2005 at 10:59 UTC
What I was trying to point out is that in the example, slightly more personal "untested" code, to use your criteria, needed to be written when interfacing to the File module than using a glob and recursion. There was therefore no saving achieved by using the module. And is a module better than a function like glob? I feel that the "module" button appears almost to be a kneejerk reaction and I am trying to open some minds. One world, one people	[reply]