Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Restricting @INC for specific application need

by Tanktalus (Canon)
on Mar 04, 2008 at 16:43 UTC ( #671924=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Restricting @INC for specific application need

I'm still trying to figure this out. It seems it runs contrary to some of the culture of perl. For about the same reason why there are no "private" methods (well, unless you do something really silly), or any way to prevent someone from subclassing your package, the ability to go and install new modules is generally a good thing. In fact, in my setup script, I only expand CPAN modules that haven't been superseded by whatever is on the system already - allowing for a newer module is probably a good thing.

That said, you may be more interested in the only module. It may get you what you want without all the hackery of @INC. (Well, it will do its own hackery, rather than relying on your own hackery :-))


Comment on Re: Restricting @INC for specific application need
Re^2: Restricting @INC for specific application need
by naikonta (Curate) on Mar 06, 2008 at 15:20 UTC
    Well, this has nothing to do with subclassing. The application, specially this particular distribution, is intented to use only required CPAN modules disributed with it.The only module is close to what I need, but then I have to track the version of all modules to make sure the expected targets are the ones get loaded.

    Out of all, it may really sound silly, but I really hope I only do this once.


    Open source softwares? Share and enjoy. Make profit from them if you can. Yet, share and enjoy!

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://671924]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (15)
As of 2014-07-29 19:14 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (226 votes), past polls