On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > but as you said we have this already, and it doesn't take the problem
> > away. You have to remember to declare the package when you just want to
> > run some code and switch back to Apache::ReadConfig when you want to do
> > the configuration. To me it makes sense to let <Perl> run in the package
> > main, unless specified differently and have <PerlConf> or whatever which
> > explicitly declares the Apache::ReadConfig package for you. I'm just
> > trying to make things less error-prone for users.
>
> you think it will be less error-prone to change the behavior of
> how <Perl> worked from 1.x? if you want something to run in package main,
> say so with 'package main' or use PerlRequire.
users don't read the documentation thoroughly, and even if they do,
chances are that the only thing they will rememember after reading the
docs is that <Perl> can run any code.
> changing the behavior of what <Perl> currently does and adding a new
> directive just to be in a different package does not make any sense to
> me.
ok, no prob.
At least I'd suggest not to define the Apache::ReadConfig by default, let
the user define it, than it will make <Perl> sections, as a plain Perl
scratch place, and if you will have to specify
package Apache::ReadConfig;
before changing configuration, then things will be more explicit.
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://eXtropia.com/
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
