Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2011
Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote
on Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:51:59 MST:
>>>> I don't see why using a \N{} sequence should have any impact on what
>>>> functions are available to use in my code.
>>> Compare:
>>>
>>> $ perl -wE 'binmode STDOUT; warn File::Spec->catfile("foo","bar")'
>>> Can't locate object method "catfile" via package "File::Spec" (perh<SNIP>
>>>
>>> with:
>>>
>>> $ perl -wE 'STDOUT->binmode; warn File::Spec->catfile("foo","bar")'
>>> foo/bar at -e line 1.
>> Sure, I think that's confusing too.
> FWIW, I find this confusing as well, yet this is how things work today:
> $ blead -E '
> print charnames::viacode(0x41), "\n";
> package foo {
> use charnames();
> }'
>
> LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A
> Loading charnames in a different scope, even package, enables
> use of the functions at a distance.
Ayup.
> Does this fact change anyone's opinion?
It may, but it doesn't change *mine*. This is just how things happen
in Perl, and there's no way to address it without redesigning the whole
language from the ground up; see Perl6.
And er, I've actually made intentional use of the sort of thing you show in
the quoted portion. Similarly with IO:: stuff. It's probably a dumb thing
to do, but I knew that was how Perl happens to work, so I did it. It's a
bit embarrassing but there it is. You use what's there.
Perl really isn't spec-based to allow one to adjudge a bug from a feature
based on a formal spec, so there's a lot of this sort of thing going around.
--tom
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next