Re: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module)

From the Module::Load Documentation:

If you consult perldoc -f require you will see that require will behav
+e differently when given a bareword or a string.

In the case of a string, require assumes you are wanting to load a fil
+e. But in the case of a bareword, it assumes you mean a module.

This gives nasty overhead when you are trying to dynamically require m
+odules at runtime, since you will need to change the module notation 
+(Acme::Comment) to a file notation fitting the particular platform yo
+u are on.
[download]

Actually I have no clue if that's right, but it sounds like it answers your question.

Perl 6 in German

Comment on Re: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module) by Corion (Patriarch) on Aug 17, 2007 at 14:21 UTC
I think this part is even wrong: This gives nasty overhead when you are trying to dynamically require m +odules at runtime, since you will need to change the module notation (Acme::Comment) to a file notation fitting the particular platform you are on. ... because `require FILENAME` always wants unix notation (forward slashes and .pm at the end), no matter what the platform is.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module) by djerius (Beadle) on Aug 17, 2007 at 14:30 UTC
Thanks, but `eval "require $module"` avoids this problem as it ensures that `require` is passed a bareword.	[reply] [d/l] [select]