Paul Hodges writes:
> That said, it's the strange and usually VERY old script that doesn't
> start with
>
> use strict;
> use warnings;
Moreover, it should be a clue to us that there's a shirt stating:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
Hinting that this is the way you start a perl program. While I don't
like strict all that much for my small programs, apparently a bunch of
people do.
But it's mainly a toss-up whether it's on or off by default. It's
definitely off by default for -e scripts. It's definitely on by default
for modules. But the main program could go either way. I'd actually
like to see it on by default for the consistency (noticing that there
are a few different ways of being consistent) that everything in a file
has strict on.
Larry has proposed a three-character "no strict". I'm not sure there's
really much to complain about. He's thinking in the right direction
(how could we assume otherwise :-).
And this particular issue has nothing to do with making things easy for
the compiler. There are some things that are, like classes being closed
at runtime unless asked otherwise. But note that you can still keep
them open, so we're not taking away any rope, we're just making you ask
for it. I doubt terseness is an issue when you're modifying classes at
runtime.
Luke
