Your code is very similar to what is in Module::Load.
Why is this better than a simple eval "require $module"
which uses Perl's built-in module searching capability and doesn't require any path name manipulation?
Re^2: eval "require $module" vs. Module::Load::load($module)
Download Code Replies are listed 'Best First'.
You shouldn't forget that every eval "..." must be followed by or die $@ or you will never find out why requireing your module failed. In that way, I consider my way to be more foolproof. My code is quite different from the code in Module::Load because my code does not try to guess whether it is a filename or a bareword module name and it also does not do any fancy games to massage the error message. I don't like modules that try to be fancy in their error messages because far too often I found that the one helpful error message got suppressed when I wanted to see it.
I'm aware of Perl exceptions and how to handle them. What I do with $@ is really not germane to the question, which is to determine if there is any functional difference between Module::Load and eval "require $module".
Your code uses the same general approach as Module::Load (albeit expressed more succinctly) namely to create a filename out of a module name and pass that to require.
So, other than style, is there any technical reason to choose this method over