Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2016
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Priven <aaron@priven.com> wrote: > It seems to me there’s a difference between bringing something into core > that deals with a wart in the language, and a whole new facility like > CGI.pm or Moose. Module::Runtime is basically just a way of getting around > the syntax of the “require” function, right? You can specify a module as a > bareword or a file as a string, but there’s no way to specify a module as a > regular string. It’s easy to imagine a better interface for “require” that > would make Module::Runtime unnecessary, were it not for backwards > compatibility. Given that, it seems reasonable to bring in Module::Runtime > (and justify bringing in things like Scalar-List-Utils) without opening up > the core to every new framework. All of this would make sense to me if we didn't already have a module for doing just that in core. The question isn't just "is it useful" or even "is it better than Module::Load". The question is "is it so much better that we should replace Module::Load in core or tolerate having two modules in core doing the same". And related to that "is either of those options better than enhancing Module::Load". LeonThread Previous | Thread Next