On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 01:21 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > >I think there are two problems. One is the naming convention, the > >second, the global effects. > > > >Why not split them. The names could be improved. > > > >And the global nature (of the name) abolished. > > I'm not entirely sure that tossing the global nature of these things is a > bad idea. It is kinda convenient to be able to mess with things (like $^W) > and have them stay messed-with. Tossing that makes some sense from a > stricture/no-action-at-a-distance standpoint, but having a quick & dirty > way to just *do* something is kinda perlish. > I think the "safe" compromise is that the globals can be globally affected if they are tweaked in package "main" but localised to a specific package if they are tweaked in pakcage "Foo". This would then keep Dan happy with the perlish global approach but would prevent module authors from messing with each others globals without realising it. Of course, from what I can see, most of the globals don't really need to be global anyway (can't remember the RFC number). We already have "use warnings" in perl5.6. -- Tim Jenness JCMT software engineer/Support scientist http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj
