develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from May 2013

[perl #111644] Adding mylib to core [was Re: pop @INC (".")]

From:
James E Keenan via RT
Date:
May 27, 2013 00:19
Subject:
[perl #111644] Adding mylib to core [was Re: pop @INC (".")]
Message ID:
rt-3.6.HEAD-2650-1369613933-659.111644-15-0@perl.org
On Thu Mar 08 16:12:53 2012, ikegami@adaelis.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It was mentioned that "." in @INC is usually serves as a "poor man's"
> version of L<mylib>.
> 
> I would like to request the addition of L<mylib> to core. (It even handles
> symbolic links perfectly.)
> 
> - Eric
> 
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jan Dubois <jand@activestate.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012, David Golden wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Todd Rinaldo <toddr@cpanel.net> wrote:
> > > > Does anyone besides me share my concern that putting "." in the path
> > > > isn't always necessarily desirable?
> > >
> > > I agree that it's not always desirable, but I'm not convinced that
> > > it's never desirable, either. Or rather, if undesirable, how/when
> > > should it be removed from @INC. Optionally with "-T" or mandatory
> > > enforcement by the interpreter?
> >
> > I find it always undesirable.  What I usually want is mylib.pm,
> > and '.' in @INC does provide similar functionality while testing
> > from inside the script directory:
> >
> >    http://search.cpan.org/dist/mylib/mylib.pm
> >
> > If I really wanted '.' in @INC, then -I. is a cheap commandline
> > option, or "BEGIN { push @INC, '.' }" a trivial script addition.
> >
> > But as I already said, I never really want '.' in @INC, I either
> > want $FindBin::RealBin, or the directory pushed by mylib.pm.
> >
> > So I think a Configure option to build perl without '.' in @INC
> > would be fine (and core tests should be updated to accommodate that),
> > but a forced -T does not feel right to me.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Jan
> >
> >
> >

Given that we are currently in the process of removing from the core
distribution modules which have been there for 15+ years, I'd say we now
have a very high bar to inclusion of modules in core.

This proposal has failed to gain a second (or any comment whatsoever)
during the year since the ticket was filed.  Is there anyone other than
the original poster who feels this should be pursued?

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan


---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: new
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=111644



nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About