New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
please enhance 'use' and "use parent" to use 'base's modfind ability #12100
Comments
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgCreated by perl-diddler@tlinx.orgIn order that "use" and "use parent" support similar semantics (from 'base' manpage) "base" employs some heuristics to determine if a module has already package Foo; package Bar; Currently, "use parent", supports the above through a different and It would be much easier if the all of them supported the same As it stands, the 3 types of use, which I believe are all in "CORE", Thanks! Perl Info
|
From @cpansproutOn Sun May 13 17:30:23 2012, LAWalsh wrote:
One of the purposes of ‘use parent’ was to keep things simple, as
If we were to do that with ‘use’, it would break any code that sets a Consider $Data::Dumper::Useqq. I set that all the time when debugging. -- Father Chrysostomos |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @cpansproutOn Sun May 13 17:55:49 2012, sprout wrote:
Actually, I misunderstood what base.pm does. This would still be a -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @doyOn Sun, May 13, 2012 at 05:30:23PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
As long as loading modules can have arbitrary effects in arbitrary -doy |
From @ikegamiOn Sun, May 13, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Linda Walsh <perlbug-followup@perl.org>wrote:
If you want that behaviour, use L<base>. L<parent> was specifically created - Eric |
From @demerphqOn 14 May 2012 08:24, Eric Brine <ikegami@adaelis.com> wrote:
Thank you for calling it what it is. We would not have L<parent> if cheers, -- |
@rjbs - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected' |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgFather Chrysostomos via RT wrote:
If use base did that, it would be bad, but if it was written Are you sure use 'base' will not load classes if you've referenced a If it is the latter, and one has defined code in the class before a I.e. usually if one has a 'cache', and one has loaded an object into the I can't think of any system that ignores in-memory versions an object in Certainly with an override, or a cache-flush, forcing a reload from disk But can anyone think of any systems or subsystems in computer science I would go so far that if a computer found a copy of a file in memory or So why is perl backwards from what would seem to be the norm? Why Of course this presumes correct implementation of checking that a |
From @CorionHello, as the author of parent.pm, I think that some historical context will be http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2007/07/msg127273.html Also, a short description of some situations where base.pm fails to load http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=738152 I also gave a talk at the German Perl Workshop on the problems with http://corion.net/talks/Probleme-mit-base.pm/probleme-mit-base.pm-talk.html
"Caching at every level" is not the motto of Perl.
-max [1] |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#112916 (status was 'rejected')
Searchable as RT112916$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: