On 2003-05-07 Vishal Verma wrote:
>--- Duncan Cameron <dcameron@...> wrote:
>> A couple of points.
>> A package might have been loaded due to it being
>> within the same file as
>> another package. For example;
>> file A.pm
>> package A;
>> package A::SubPackageA;
>> Odd perhaps, but still valid. In this case you
>> definitely don't want to
>> do a 'require A::SubPackageA;'. So checking %INC
>> isn't quite the right
>> thing to do.
>I have a question. Does it hurt to do a "require
>A::SubPackageA", if "A::SubPackageA" has already been
>loaded? What side effects will that have?
Well in this case the 'require' will fail because there is no such file
as A/SubPackageA.pm. But in general you are right, there should be no
problem in requiring a file that has already been loaded (if I read
Given this, I am not too sure what SOAP::Lite is really checking for
when it tests the existence of the symbol table for, in your example,