On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 04:53:00PM +0200, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> Andy Armstrong wrote:
>
> >>>Would it also do
> >>>
> >>>use relative [to => 'My::Big::Namespace'] => qw( This That
> >>>Munger::Fast Munger::Precise );
> >>
> >>It can easily do that. The problem is more the name. In this case,
> >>"use relative to ..." works well. But in y original example, "use
> >>subclass" works better. Maybe I should provide both modules then.
> >
> >I always hesitate to suggest Aristotle is mistaken - it's not a
> >common occurrence - but I really think 'subclass' is wrong. As you
> >said this is an extension to the semantics of use that has (I
> >presume) nothing to do with any inheritance relationship the
> >modules may have with each other.
>
> Mixing both your and Aristotle's suggestions, here is the new synopsis:
>
> package BigApp::Report;
>
> use relative qw(Create Publish);
> # loads BigApp::Report::Create, BigApp::Report::Publish
>
> use relative qw(..::Utils);
> # loads BigApp::Utils
>
> use relative to => "Enterprise::Framework" => qw(Base Factory);
> # loads Enterprise::Framework:Base, Enterprise::Framework::Factory
Hmm, the last example is equivalent to this:
use relative qw(to Enterprise::Framework Base Factory);
Which might conceivably cause a problem for someone at some point. You
might consider requiring the string ':to' instead of 'to'.
Paul.
--
Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
