On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Frank Thomas wrote:
I'd suggest "use Exporter;" instead of "require Exporter;" because it's
less overhead.
Bye
Frank
I don't know if it matters much, but I thought that
"require Exporter" was the idiomatic way to do this,
as recommended by the Exporter-manpage:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Reference/Products/ActivePerl/lib/Exporter.
html
As I understand it, there are two differences between
use Exporter;
and
require Exporter;
1) "require" happens at runtime, "use" at compile time
2) the "use" line also tries to "import" symbols from the other
package (in this case Exporter)
So if there is any difference in overhead, I think that "require"
would win since no call to "import" is done.
If your line
use Exporter;
was changed to
use Exporter ();
the only remaining difference would be compile-time versus run-time.
To quote from the documentation (perldoc -f use):
If you don't want your namespace altered, explicitly supply
an empty list:
use Module ();
That is exactly equivalent to
BEGIN { require Module }
But I see no point in doing otherwise than what the documenation of
Exporter recommends.
None of this matters much,
I just felt for looking things up in the documenation ...
/johan