Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter

Simon Cozens <simon@netthink.co.uk> wrote
> 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.

True but irrelevant.   If you're worried about the cost of "use UNIVERSAL;"
the correct action is to cross it out, as UNIVERSAL.pm recommends:

     These subroutines should not be imported via
     "use UNIVERSAL qw(...)".  If you want simple local access to
     them you can do

       *isa = \&UNIVERSAL::isa;

     to import isa into your package.


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 Benjamin Sugars
• 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 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