Re^2: stronger than eval?

in reply to Re: stronger than eval?
in thread stronger than eval?

do this with UNIVERSAL::require

which no one should ever do. It pollutes the UNIVERSAL class which means it affects every class and every object.

⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

Comment on Re^2: stronger than eval?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: stronger than eval? by mreece (Friar) on Sep 21, 2006 at 19:34 UTC
i agree with the second sentence, but not the first. ;-)	[reply]
Re^4: stronger than eval? by diotalevi (Canon) on Sep 21, 2006 at 19:38 UTC
So having unrelated objects all get a method that they might not wish to have added to them is ok with you? ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^5: stronger than eval? by mreece (Friar) on Sep 21, 2006 at 19:46 UTC
if the method is called `use` or `require`, then yes, i am ok with that, even when it results in dying if you try `$obj->use` because you did not define your own `use` method on that class (which is what would typically happen anyway, except with a different error). the more exceptional case would be when you expected to handle `use` or `require` methods via `AUTOLOAD`, but i would never expect such so adding these methods to `UNIVERSAL` is ok with me.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: stronger than eval? by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 21, 2006 at 20:19 UTC
Re^7: stronger than eval? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 21, 2006 at 21:57 UTC
Re^6: stronger than eval? by diotalevi (Canon) on Sep 21, 2006 at 20:13 UTC

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom