Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter

Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@wiw.org> wrote
> How about this, then?

What's the point of that?

I think you are failing to understand the comment.   The "historical
accident that should be fixed sometime" is that there is an import in
the UNIVERSAL:: namespace *at all*.    Having extra things in that namespace
is Very Bad since they are inherited *everywhere*.

It used to be much worse  -  see

http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/1997-06/msg00997.html

But as Graham has pointed out, we can't withdraw it without going through
a deprecation cycle first.    And mending perlobj.pod.  :-(


Mike Guy

• [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 Simon Cozens
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• 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 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