Re^5: 'do' command is dead? Surely not?

in reply to Re^4: 'do' command is dead? Surely not?
in thread 'do' command is dead? Surely not?

Based on this post by the OP it sounds like this is the problem!

Just to add a little info: Unfortunately the 5.24.1 doc is not up on http://perldoc.perl.org yet, so here is the link to the source. It seems that do's mechanism of searching @INC was impacted by this change - some interesting further reading for the curious is in the P5P threads The tricky issue of do() and [perl #131069] do file: Add './' in additional cases. Update: So as far as I understand it, the issue might be improved upon in v5.26 when that gets released.

Comment on Re^5: 'do' command is dead? Surely not? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: 'do' command is dead? Surely not? by ACI (Acolyte) on May 19, 2017 at 17:13 UTC
At the start of your first-linked P5P thread, haukex: Which means simply saying "welp, . isn't in @INC anymore" is going to leave a vast number of broken scripts, most of them likely the ones whose users are least knowledgable about perl (do 'config.pl' is very common baby perl, I think). Fair comment! I'm likely to solve it by automating a massive search-and-replace, inserting a `'./'` before all filenames. (Might just back up first!). I think I know enough to know that the removal of `'.'` from `@INC` is best not over-ridden! Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this. You are a wise and, yes, very attractive bunch of people!	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: 'do' command is dead? Surely not?
by ACI (Acolyte) on May 19, 2017 at 17:13 UTC

At the start of your first-linked P5P thread, haukex:

Which means simply saying "welp, . isn't in @INC anymore" is going to leave a vast number of broken scripts, most of them likely the ones whose users are least knowledgable about perl (do 'config.pl' is very common baby perl, I think).

Fair comment!

I'm likely to solve it by automating a massive search-and-replace, inserting a './' before all filenames. (Might just back up first!). I think I know enough to know that the removal of '.' from @INC is best not over-ridden!

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this. You are a wise and, yes, very attractive bunch of people!

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom