Re^6: stronger than eval?

I have to agree with diotalevi on this: there is no good reason for this to be done through UNIVERSAL::. It's just a simple utility method. It does not need to be added to every namespace automatically.

Comment on Re^6: stronger than eval?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: stronger than eval? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 21, 2006 at 21:57 UTC
I agree too. For example, `use UNIVERSAL::require (); Cache::File->use() or print "error: $@";` [download] could be written as `use Module::Loader qw( load ); load Cache::File or print "error: $@";` [download] Just as readable. Just as simple. No polution of `UNIVERSAL::`. And with the right prototype, `load`'s argument doesn't even need to be quoted. Update: The module I made up above already exists as Module::Load! Update: Module::Load dies instead of returning false.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: stronger than eval?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 21, 2006 at 21:57 UTC

I agree too. For example,

use UNIVERSAL::require ();

Cache::File->use()
   or print "error: $@";
[download]

could be written as

use Module::Loader qw( load );

load Cache::File
   or print "error: $@";
[download]

Just as readable. Just as simple. No polution of UNIVERSAL::. And with the right prototype, load's argument doesn't even need to be quoted.

Update: The module I made up above already exists as Module::Load!
Update: Module::Load dies instead of returning false.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]