On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 08:22:59PM -0700, Doug MacEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If this were true, it would be very bad. If there is no technical
> > need to do this "half-reloading" then it should definitely be turned
> > off.
>
> it is off by default, you turned it on with 'PerlFreshRestart On'
Which had undocumented side effects, breaking valid perl. (No problem, if
everywhere were documented... :)
> > It breaks perfectly valid perl code, creating some kind of
>
> it's not breaking code, it's exposing broken code. if a module can't
> then the module is broken.
You must be kidding here!!! Using lexicals on package level is broken??? If
it is broken, then _why_ is it recommended programming practise in perl (see
perltoot for example)?
Sorry, you can say that this and that programming technique is invalid
under PerlFreshRestart, which is entirely ok, and just means that mod_perl
!= perl (which it is in other details as well). Calling recommended perl
programming techniques "broken", however, is something entirely different
:-|
Especially since this results in _very_ subtle problems, in where, for
example, splitting a function into two functions might render a program
not working for reasons well outside the understanding of many perl
programmers.
In any case, mod_perl is fine to do this. It would have bitten me much
later if it didn't do this double-parsing at loading time. This, however,
is an incompatibility from mod_perl to standard perl, not "broken".
What is broken is the notion of "deleting from INC" is equivalent to
"unloading a module".
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
