How about making Hash::NoVivify or some equivalent module a standard module so people don't have to reinvent this tiny wheel all the time?
Presumably, you mean with "standard module", a module that is distributed with the main Perl distribution. However, we already have a (succesful) mechanism in place to prevent reinventing wheels. And it even works without having to upgrade your perl. It's called CPAN.
People don't have to reinvent the wheels to get a graphical environment, to fetch documents with HTTP, or to connect to a database, yet there are no "standard modules" to do any of this. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Overlooking the smug tone; there's a limit of where people don't want to rely on non-standard modules. Small things like this get reimplemented over and over again, because it's "so small" and it's "not necessary to use a module for that". When a module become standard, that attitude changes somewhat.
Now, I'm not saying that this particular module should be in the standard library, but I definately think your categorical rejection of it lacks. Slightly overlooking that the choice to include a module in the standard library seems somewhat arbitrary; many of the newer standard modules are "Perl close", i.e. they solve a problem that has to do with Perl the language, and many others solve omni-present problems. Creating a GUI and your other examples are not omni-present problems. When does a module qualify as a standard module for you?
ihb
See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |