Yes, that change (adding "use File::Basename") corrects the error. I'm simply not fully understanding the distinction between implementing File::Basename and File::Spec, as presented by the text. Thanks!

They're just two modules with different albeit somewhat related functionality. What do you mean with "implementing" anyway? BTW: you have a special and convenient shortcut to make the name of a module into a clickable link, if you like. Just write [mod://File::Basename] and it will render like File::Basename.

Perhaps my wording has been too vague. The "Llama book" (in Section 15.3) provides an example to demonstrate usage of File::Basename:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

use File::Basename;

print "Please enter a filename: ";
chomp(my $old_name = <STDIN>);

my $dirname = dirname $old_name;
my $basename = basename $old_name;

$basename =~ s/^/not/;
my $new_name = "$dirname/$basename";
rename ($old_name, $new_name)
  or warn "Can't rename '$old_name' to '$new_name': $!";
[download]

Then a 2nd example, to show additional functionality provided by File::Spec:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

use File::Basename;
use File::Spec;

print "Please enter a filename: ";
chomp(my $old_name = <STDIN>);

my $dirname = dirname $old_name;
my $basename = basename $old_name;

$basename =~ s/^/not/;
my $new_name = File::Spec->catfile($dirname, $basename);

rename ($old_name, $new_name)
  or warn "Can't rename '$old_name' to '$new_name': $!";
[download]

My question is... What additional functionality has the second script provided? Both scripts run effectively on both unix and windows systems. I'm missunderstanding the advantage that File::Spec should be adding. Also, thanks for the tip about turning module names into clickable links!