Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>that doesn't solve the problem for those expecting @INC to be
>>un-modified behind the scenes.
>
>
> one of us is missing something.
> my most recent suggestion was to *change* any instance of '.' in @INC to
> cwd, not to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> that doesn't solve the problem for those expecting @INC to be
> un-modified behind the scenes.
one of us is missing something.
my most recent suggestion was to *change* any instance of '.' in @INC to
cwd, not to add anything. so lets say @INC was:
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not sure that's a good idea. It may break someone's code, who didn't
>>expect the cwd to be in @INC. should the control to automatically
>>prepand to @INC be given to users here?
>
> to be safer, could just replace any
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I'm not sure that's a good idea. It may break someone's code, who didn't
> expect the cwd to be in @INC. should the control to automatically
> prepand to @INC be given to users here?
to be safer, could just replace any @INC value of '.' with cwd.
> w
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>1. The chdir issue with registry isn't resolved yet, need to do
>>something about it before mod_perl 2.0 will be really useful for people,
>>since want it or not, there are many users who want only the registry
>>interface.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> 1. The chdir issue with registry isn't resolved yet, need to do
> something about it before mod_perl 2.0 will be really useful for people,
> since want it or not, there are many users who want only the registry
> interface.
sure, but not everybody usin
1. The chdir issue with registry isn't resolved yet, need to do
something about it before mod_perl 2.0 will be really useful for people,
since want it or not, there are many users who want only the registry
interface.
2. should we revert back to Apache::Registry from ModPerl::Registry, now
th
