looks similar to: https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=130535
require seems to be pretty broken since the lexical module thing. Unfortunately our tests weren't good enough to pick this up ( I think it's because it's being required dynamically outside the mainline). LL On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:32 PM Fields, Christopher J <cjfie...@illinois.edu> wrote: > Ah, okay, I missed that it isn’t in the ‘require’ but in the symbol lookup > afterwards. Okay, I think this makes some sense (I’ll look through docs to > see if it goes with what is mentioned there), though it is a bit > inconsistent in behavior with the base ‘fasta' module working while the > nested ones (‘Bio::fasta’, ‘Bio::SeqIO::fasta’) don't. > > > > On 2/3/17, 7:38 AM, "Chris Fields via RT" <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> > wrote: > > >Thanks nine. My suggestion is that it's at the very least a buglet, in > that there isn't consistency with how modules are loaded (note the module > in the base directory, 'fasta', worked). > > > >If the syntax stays, I also think it's worth noting this behavior in the > docs and pointing out why it's set up this way, both of the following imply > the 'require ::($foo)' should work, but maybe this wasn't worked out prior > to lexical module fixes? > > > >https://docs.perl6.org/syntax/require > >https://docs.perl6.org/language/packages#index-entry-%3A%3A%28%29 > > > >On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 02:34:45 -0800, n...@detonation.org wrote: > >> The issue can be worked around/fixed with the following patch: > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/Bio/SeqIO.pm6 b/lib/Bio/SeqIO.pm6 > >> index 9ee4980..710dec4 100644 > >> --- a/lib/Bio/SeqIO.pm6 > >> +++ b/lib/Bio/SeqIO.pm6 > >> @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ class Bio::SeqIO { > >> require ::($format); > >> }; > >> > >> - if ::($format) ~~ Failure { > >> + if MY::{$format} ~~ Failure { > >> die "Can't load $format: $!"; > >> } else { > >> - $!plugin = ::($format).new(); > >> + $!plugin = MY::{$format}.new(); > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> As the symbols are imported lexically, you will find them in the > >> lexical (MY) scope. I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug or > >> not. I'm not familiar enough with the thoughts that went into the > >> design. It's certainly a pitty, that ::() which is quite short became > >> less useful and users have to use the longer MY::() instead. > > > > >
