Re: Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* Mike Doherty [2012-04-11 01:10]: > I typically use_ok(...) or BAIL_OUT. If that's the only way to use > use_ok safely, then maybe it should do that for you automatically. I don’t think changing its meaning so drastically is feasible now. Also, this leaves the issue that if it (or any other rep

Re: Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Mike Doherty
On 12-04-10 05:59 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Mike Doherty wrote: >> I don't see any discouragement in the documentation... and what's wrong >> with use_ok to begin with? > > If it fails, the module may not be loaded, or partially loaded. In > such circumstances

Re: Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Andy Lester
On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote: > If it fails, the module may not be loaded, or partially loaded. In > such circumstances, testing the rest of the code can give very > confusing results. It doesn't make sense to continue testing usually. It seems that use_ok() ought to die i

Re: Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Leon Timmermans
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Mike Doherty wrote: > I don't see any discouragement in the documentation... and what's wrong > with use_ok to begin with? If it fails, the module may not be loaded, or partially loaded. In such circumstances, testing the rest of the code can give very confusing

Re: Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Mike Doherty
On 12-04-10 05:20 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> 2. Should use_ok() be discouraged in the documentation? > > I'm very much in favour of this. I don't see any discouragement in the documentation... and what's wrong with use_ok to beg

Re: Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > In a series of patches, Father Chrysostomos and I enhanced use_ok() so that it > can apply lexical effects to more closely emulate the real `use`. > There are two questions: > > 1. Should the lexical effect patches to use_ok() b

Revert use_ok() change to allow lexical effects?

2012-04-10 Thread Michael G Schwern
In a series of patches, Father Chrysostomos and I enhanced use_ok() so that it can apply lexical effects to more closely emulate the real `use`. For example, use_ok('strict'); Previously this would just load strict and call import, but strictures would not actually be applied to your scope.