Any harm in not using Exporter at all in my procedural modules?

Anonymous Monk has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

If I'm happy to fully-qualify function names in my scripts, is there any harm in simply not using Exporter at all in my modules? For example, in my Frob.pm:

package Frob;

use strict;
use warnings;

sub frobber { ... }

1;
[download]

Is there any functionality I'm missing out on, aside from not getting to use the unadorned symbol names in my script?

Comment on Any harm in not using Exporter at all in my procedural modules? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Any harm in not using Exporter at all in my procedural modules? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 23, 2010 at 16:38 UTC
It'll prevent version checks of the form `use Foo '1.002';` [download] but that's probably it. Note that the following form will work without Exporter: `use Foo 1.002;` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Any harm in not using Exporter at all in my procedural modules? by Anonymous Monk on Feb 23, 2010 at 17:00 UTC
Oh, that's very cool. If I put `our $VERSION = 1.002;` near the top of my module, and if I stick with floats everywhere for version numbers, then things work as expected. OTOH, if I use strings ('1.002' instead of 1.002), then things fail silently. Good to know. Thanks!	[reply]
Re: Any harm in not using Exporter at all in my procedural modules? by jethro (Monsignor) on Feb 23, 2010 at 16:07 UTC
No, not that I know of. Modules that use an OO interface also don't use Exporter because they get the service of Exporter through the object interface.	[reply]