Re^2: Most effective way to dynamically load a module?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Most effective way to dynamically load a module? by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 22, 2006 at 05:15 UTC
Define expensive. eval isn't free, but it doesn't cost that much. In any case this is all micro-optimization that is unlikely to matter much.	[reply]
Re^4: Most effective way to dynamically load a module? by BerntB (Deacon) on Aug 22, 2006 at 05:47 UTC
"expensive" here means that I am nervous about this part of the code. :-) I think this bit of code (together with unpacking of objects) are in the critical path. Hmmm... to compile a single statement with one parameter shouldn't be much more than lex:ing a couple of strings and doing a jump in a parser's jump table, then mallocing a bit memory for the minimal parse tree and probably copying the parameter. OK, my instinctive fear of `eval` might be wrong, here. (-: You can take the compiler from the old C programmer but you can never stop him doing premature optimizations? :-)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Most effective way to dynamically load a module? by friedo (Prior) on Aug 22, 2006 at 04:15 UTC
If you have to do it at runtime, just use `require`. It won't call `import`, and it won't load a module if it's already loaded.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Most effective way to dynamically load a module? by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 22, 2006 at 05:20 UTC
Using require is fine but then you have to manually convert between class names and file names yourself. Which means that you have to translate Module::Name to Module/Name.pm. Not hard. But requires extra code.	[reply]