On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 11:22:36PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> We should probably consider a UNIVERSAL::import too, perhaps to either
> take over Exporter's or at least make sure things work right. In
> particular I'm thinking in the context of a couple RFC's:
>
> RFC 74 (v3): Proposal to rename C<import> and C<unimport>
> RFC 233 (v1): Replace Exporter by a better scaling mechanism
I've been procrastinating reading those for a while now. I'll have to
get around to it. My gut says it might be a good idea for
UNIVERSAL::import() to provide a very stripped down version of
Exporter::import(), but keep Exporter around for the special cases.
> Actually, any reason not to just plain replace the require keyword with
> UNIVERSAL::require altogether?
You keep forgetting about:
require "some/file/which/is/not/a/module.pl";
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
But why? It's such a well designed cesspool of C++ code. Why wouldn't
you want to hack mozilla?
-- Ziggy
