|
in reply to Location of 'use' statements
I like to keeps things local, where possible. For example, if Data::Dumper is only used by one sub in my package, then I'd include it within the scope of that subroutine. Unfortunately, Perl5 can't honour that scoping (subs are package-scoped, not lexical), but it feels nicer to have the use close to where the symbols are used.
--Dave |
Re^2: Location of 'use' statements
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Apr 21, 2003 at 10:02 UTC
|
Obviously if it works for you it's a good thing :-)
However, I've had to maintain code in this style and it's been a complete pain. In particular:
- You have to scan the whole module to find out what modules are being used.
- It can lead to confusion when you add a subroutine that clashes with an imported subroutine - since there is no global place where you can find out what subroutines have been imported.
- You suddenly have modules being loaded at runtime if you decide to use AutoSplit - which can lead to some rather evil debuging sessions.
- Makes refactoring harder since you have to remember to move the use around when you move the code that uses the module in question.
In general I've found that pretending use has different scoping rules causes more problems that it solves.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
