Re^14: Where is the @ISA array?

I am starting to think you guys badgered the hell out of the author of base and are just trying to make a name for yourselves by force.

So far, it seems like a non-problem. Oooo ... the error message is not quite accurate. Most error messages aren't. So, rather than using a module correctly, you create a non-problem and get your name in the core.

Meanwhile, people who actually use this code suffer for your ego. Nice job guys.

Comment on Re^14: Where is the @ISA array?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^15: Where is the @ISA array? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 22, 2009 at 17:29 UTC
Heh. The people listed as parent's authors are major Perl contributors. They could care less about their name appearing in parent's docs. Wasn't at least one of them a Pumpking? Even base's authors appear in parent's author list, so what you say can't possibly be true. And I'm not one of those names — I'm not even involved with Perl's development — so even if what you say was true, it not relevant to this discussion. The whole idea for the creation of parent is to allow you to keep using base. So do so if that's what you want. You sure love to whine about something you said is not a problem involving a module you say you'll never use.	[reply]
Re^16: Where is the @ISA array? by Anonymous Monk on Jan 22, 2009 at 18:18 UTC
I still believe that you all should have fixed base instead of polluting the namespace. I don't see your solution doing anything but driving another divide into this already divided language. You guys didn't like an error message, so you wrote a whole new CORE module. That's just not good programming no matter how you slice it.	[reply]