Re^2: Redefining Imported Subs: of scope and no

[LanX]

in reply to Re: Redefining Imported Subs: of scope and no
in thread Redefining Imported Subs: of scope and no

You're confusing me!

Why do you always seem to ask me if you reply to someone else?

Please don't be surprised if I'm not replying.

And please don't simply change your posts after being proofed wrong in a reply.

> Where's the ability to flip the real say() back on?

Just swap no with use!

feature should be scoped (in this example file scoped), which makes much sense when debugging!

Otherwise the OP could (like already shown) do "use if" for testing a global constant like main::VERBOSE spreading all files.

Anyway manipulating say for debugging purpose is such a broken idea that I don't wanna invest more into this discussion... :)

[7stud]

And please don't simply change your posts after being proofed wrong in a reply.

Huh? Where? What? Are you talking about the post where I congratulated you on such a simple solution? I didn't see where you 'proofed' that offering congratulations was wrong?

[LanX]

the one about "goatse getting into the wheels of your bike" or so in this post

EDIT: you practically deleted everything I didn't quote in the reply.