> Instead, this code suffices:
>
> BEGIN {
> $module->require;
> $module->import;
> }
>
> We see here how neatly the UNIVERSAL::require() syntax lines up with
> Exporter::import().
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
Actually, any reason not to just plain replace the require keyword with
UNIVERSAL::require altogether? Indirect object syntax would
automatically make them the same. We could stick all the
anti-duplicate-require code in UNIVERSAL::require, then, which we'd
probably want to anyways.
-Nate
