Re^3: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module)

You shouldn't forget that every eval "..." must be followed by or die $@ or you will never find out why requireing your module failed. In that way, I consider my way to be more foolproof. My code is quite different from the code in Module::Load because my code does not try to guess whether it is a filename or a bareword module name and it also does not do any fancy games to massage the error message. I don't like modules that try to be fancy in their error messages because far too often I found that the one helpful error message got suppressed when I wanted to see it.

Comment on Re^3: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module) by djerius (Beadle) on Aug 17, 2007 at 14:59 UTC
I'm aware of Perl exceptions and how to handle them. What I do with $@ is really not germane to the question, which is to determine if there is any functional difference between Module::Load and `eval "require $module"`. Your code uses the same general approach as Module::Load (albeit expressed more succinctly) namely to create a filename out of a module name and pass that to `require`. So, other than style, is there any technical reason to choose this method over `eval "require $module"; die $@ if $@;` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module)
by djerius (Beadle) on Aug 17, 2007 at 14:59 UTC

eval "require $module"

Your code uses the same general approach as Module::Load (albeit expressed more succinctly) namely to create a filename out of a module name and pass that to require.

So, other than style, is there any technical reason to choose this method over

eval "require $module";
die $@ if $@;
[download]

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]