Yes it should be
use strict qw(......);
It would be wonderful if someone could invest in an RFC or two to propose the use of
strict.
I didn't intend to propose the use of such terms. I simply needed to put a handle on
some things.
- primitive data types; I used char, varchar, int, double as an SQL addict.
- const or constant or whatever
Additionally, there is need for proposals on syntax symmetry and module symmetry.
Perl has many ways of doing the same things. I quite like it that way. It gives me
some many ways and pleasures to toy around and then proudly confound my colleagues. On
the other hand, my meat becomes some else's poison. Symmetry promotes expectancy.
Expectancy is an expression of certainty, which is an attribute of quality. And
quality, productivity.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 08/14/2000 09:40:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Internet
cc: (bcc: Syloke Soong/Americas/NSC)
Subject: Re: RFC 89 (v2) Controllable Data Typing
> The strict directive, is set to croak when an attempt to change the
> value of constant $str22 is made. Use of
>
> use strict(constdie);
Overall the proposal looks good. However, I think this should just be
"use strict 'constants'". This makes it consistent:
use strict qw(vars subs constants);
The mode of operation for strict is to die on errors. As such, the "die"
in "constdie" is redundant. And while "constants" is longer than
"consts", it's a word and much easier to remember (your brain chunks
words but not non-words).*
Then, if you just want to issue warnings, do something like "use
warnings 'constants'".
-Nate
* However, if the keyword ends up being 'const' then 'consts' might be
more appropriate.
