Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2016
I think good points we made here. My position is also wishing to avoid adding modules. Modules I would consider are such that solve a common basic problem, have little opinion, and a great net-gain across the board of users. This is why I threw Module::Runtime into this. Now, having said that, the comments were very useful and I appreciate them and agree with them. I agree with Vincent's summary of having one good loader in core instead of multiple ones. I would like to then ask the following question: How plausible is it to "fix" Module::Load, considering people might expect its heuristic behavior? On 12/06/2016 11:21 PM, Vincent Pit (VPIT) wrote: > >> >> If anything, I'd lean towards fixing Module::Load, if only because we >> actually have other modules in core that already depend on it (mostly >> via Module::Load::Conditional). >> > > This is my opinion as well. > > Compared to Module::Load, Module::Runtime has a couple of extra > workarounds for bugs in pre-5.12 perls that can be easily ported if > deemed acceptable with regards to compatibility. Module::Rutime's > interface is generally better, but the relevant alternate interfaces > could be added to Module::Load. > > Let's just focus in having one good loader in core, that's less > maintenance in the long run, and more user-friendly. > > > VincentThread Previous | Thread Next