Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter

On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 01:41:20PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 01:30:35PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > What is it that you think this is gaining ?
> 
> I think that's not gaining anything, but it's losing a dependency on
> Exporter, which is *way* overweight for UNIVERSAL. Sounds like a Good
> Thing to me.

But why is that good ?

You are not making the process lighter as the probablility that
another module will include Exporter is very high.

Graham.

• [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Abhijit Menon-Sen
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Benjamin Sugars
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Jarkko Hietaniemi
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Simon Cozens
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by barries
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Abhijit Menon-Sen
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Simon Cozens
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr