Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2016
On Sat Oct 22 08:24:33 2016, mst@shadowcat.co.uk wrote: > > Yes. The same goes for require since as best I can tell it's the same > > underlying code. Is this a problem? > > I think it is. > > 'require' is meant to load modules, so the normal use case is walking > @INC, > so its behaviour is (relatively) expected here. > > 'do' is documented as "largely like: eval `cat stat.pl`" and generally > used > as such - the fact that its support for files in the current working > directory comes via .-in-@INC is, I think, an implementation detail. You pulled cat stat.pl from the docs the next line explicitly says that it does this based on searching @INC. In point of fact if stat.pl was also in a library path, it would have the same surprising result of not loading the local file. > > So having do() suddenly fail to DWIM for its most common and > documented > purpose is going to be intensely confusing, especially given its > common > use for e.g. relative loading of config files in Olde CGI Scripts. I would argue the Olde CGI scripts using a shiny new perl they explicitly built to not have . in @INC should also be surprised if that works. Note: all they have to do is change the code to 'do "./stat.pl "' to get that intended result > > I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to rescue that, but it > seems > like a much bigger POLS violation than the rest of the effects, and at > least we should explicitly consider the impact and whether there's > some way > to ameliorate it. The whole point of this change is that cwd should not be relevant to a running program's loading logic. It is my belief that do honoring @INC is consistent and correct. Now, if all you are arguing for is that we update the docs I am for that, but please let's do that in an alternate patch. This ticket is getting a little long in the tooth. --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=127810Thread Previous | Thread Next