in reply to Re: To be, or not to be, an object ?
in thread To be, or not to be, an object ?
JIC you were wondering about the justification for this diversion, I'm working in an environment whereby the ad-hoc downloading and use (pun intended:-) of CPAN modules is a non-trivial exercise:-(
Back OT, if the conditional were to change to ... if ($@ =~ /can't call method without a package or object ref/) {..., then the problem would, methinx, be circumvented unless there was a package perverse enough to die "can't call method..." in an overloaded isa().
BTW, wouldn't your latter point put at risk all that we're told regarding the use (pun unintended this time:-) of eval to catch errors and handle them locally - the risk of DESTROY f%*&^ing things up in such circumstances must be almost omnipresent... mustn't it ??
Just a thought...
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^3: To be, or not to be, an object ?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jul 27, 2008 at 20:18 UTC | |
by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Jul 27, 2008 at 23:14 UTC |