A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Bill Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-07 04:55]: > > Would "lib::relative" be too weird? > > There is already a `lib` pragma; `lib::relative` to me sounds > like "does something like `lib`, only relatively," which more > naturally suggests something to do with relative paths and > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I proposed pkg::relative which Eric Wilhelm liked; no word from > Sébastien yet though.
Sorry, I forgot to answer this mail. AIUI, lib::relative already exists: it's called FindBin (and the derivates). pkg::relative would seem like an incorrect name because it carries a semantic you can't achieve: in Perl, you don't load packages but modules, which happen to define (or not) a package of the same name. So, IMO, there's no other semantic to differentiate from when used as a C<use> argument, hence the plain "relative" name. -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
