Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2012
Re: pop @INC (".")
From: Todd Rinaldo
March 12, 2012 06:15
Re: pop @INC (".")
Message ID: FB031E93-6427-46BB-8504-A07A1DD1E27C@cpanel.net
On Mar 12, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Abigail wrote:
> I've no problem with a build option to remove "." from @INC. I do not believe
> it's in our interest to change the default behavior
I have never suggested that removing "." from @INC be a default build option. Multiple people have come into this discussion with that misunderstanding so maybe you're thinking I also suggested it?
I think if anything the point from earlier is pertinent that hypothetically if Debian, Cygwin and Activestate all adopted this in their builds, default or not, it would probably be something that would cause CPAN to have to be fixed to accommodate.
> Just because we someone times make a careful decision to break backwards
> compatability, we shouldn't treat that as a reason to do so willy-nilly.
> We *want* people to upgrade their Perl, and we want that process to be
> as smooth as possible. Any breakage in backwards compatability makes that
> process harder; and should be carefully considered. Removing "." from @INC
> by default doesn't make that cut, IMO.
I'm not suggesting it be done on a default build.
>> Hopefully they're reading the
>> change log when they upgrade their perl 3 code to perl 5.18.
> I really do not like that sentiment. Do realize that almost all packages
> on CPAN by themselves are worthless. They're just modules, and most of
> them do not contain complete program or applications. It's "darkpan"
> code that enables their usefulness.
I am aware that this is a significant point of disagreement in the community. But again (assuming it's not on by default), isn't it kinda a buyer beware thing if they decided to upgrade perl and choose this setting of their own free will (not default) and it causes their code to break? The same thing goes in my opinion if they upgrade their distro and the new distro has removed @INC from the path.