At 03:56 AM 3/1/01 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>A friend of mine was talking about how old WWII era analog fire
>computers, mechanical devices which calculated how much powder and at
>what angle a ship's main guns must be fired at. They had a special
>switch, "Battle Mode". In this mode, the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:35:43AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Not too sure about the whole -w on by default thing. Really makes me
> nervous. All I keep thinking about is the crap that Java spits out every
> two lines. Makes stuff really look unpolished, and the warnings change
> based on the JV
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Command-line flags on by default [-T -Mstrict -Mwarnings]:
> >
> > We already beat this to death with the .perlrc discussion. You'll
> > break reams of Perl code you probably don't even know you have this
> > way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Command-line flags on by default [-T -Mstrict -Mwarnings]:
>
> We already beat this to death with the .perlrc discussion. You'll
> break reams of Perl code you probably don't even know you have this
> way.
>
> It destroys the portability of Perl programs.
Yup,
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 02:16:34PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Ummm, I'm not too sure about this. There are, actually, backwards
> compatibility concerns. Unless I'm mistaken, warnings go to stderr,
> correct? Meaning that a program which may have lots of "unitialized
> variables" and "variable o
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But we can run an experiment. Warnings can be made default for the
> > first few releases of Perl 6 and we'll see what happens. If it looks
>
> Ummm, I'm not too sure about this. There are, actually, backwards
> com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But we can run an experiment. Warnings can be made default for the
> first few releases of Perl 6 and we'll see what happens. If it looks
> good, leave them on. If not, shut them off. Unlike most other
> features, this one doesn't have any serious backwards compati
Something I think Ed mentioned in passing a few days ago has been
running around in my mind and after some contemplation I think its
changed my mind on all this.
My position has been that warnings are ultimately good, but people who
have not internalized this will easily become annoyed with them
At 10:48 AM 2/22/2001 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
>
> The basic usefulness of warnings is not in question. This is about
> the *perception* of their utility. Warnings are only useful if the
> user heeds them. The question is, will having them on by default make
> the user more or less l
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
> >This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
> >exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
> >language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing
try/excep
At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
>This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
>exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
>language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing try/except
>blocks around every piece of IO or DB handling. Th
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
Sam Tregar wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the program.
>
> Yup. So all (potentially) exceptions are "fatal errors"? Well, that
> definition fits "almost meaningless" pretty well, in my opinion!
Not exactly. Java defines two clases of "t
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
>> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
>> languages.
>Examples? I know you're no
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > Examples? I know you're not talking about C or C++. I'm pretty sure
> > you're not talking about Java - exception-handling renders the term "fatal
> > error" almost meaningless.
>
> We
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 06:05:25PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Are we still having this discussion? :-)
*sigh* yes.
> I do not think there is hard dividing line between warnings and
> errors. "Unable to establish network connection - saving file to local
> disk" means the program is still ru
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Examples? I know you're not talking about C or C++. I'm pretty sure
> you're not talking about Java - exception-handling renders the term "fatal
> error" almost meaningless.
Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the progr
Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
default? Or even know of one?
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:01:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
>default? Or even know of one?
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal er
Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time warnings.
A run-time error is something the language defines as being explicitly
bad or a mistake (
Are we still having this discussion? :-)
At 07:23 PM 2/21/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
>errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
>
>Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time w
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
> languages. Trying to read the value of an uninitialized variable, for
> example, that's commonly a fatal e
> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
> changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
> that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well,
> we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful.
Sometimes.
> > Sometimes it's not. And that's fine.
>
> No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of
> problems. If you get 1450 'use of
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> > autovivification saying:
>
> The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> autovivification saying:
>
The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of autoviv.
> Hence I'd say that @foo[$bar] has NO INTRINSIC VALUE whatsoever
> >
> > Can you give me an example of the former?
> > I can't think of any off the top of my head.
>
> Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
>
> If part of Perl's breeding is autovivication and interpretation of undef as
> 0 or "" in the appropriate context, why should
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you
when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code
it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish
code, others might say is "horribly wrong".
--
John Porter
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >
> > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
> > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
> > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probab
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has
> gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly
> perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the
> difference.
Can you give me an example of t
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
whispered
> :
> | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
> | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
>
> I don't know that I would s
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for
4.036. I can only find man
At 02:18 PM 2/18/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:30:50PM -, Paul Marquess wrote:
> > From perllexwarn:
> >
> > -W
> >
> > If the -W flag is used on the command line, it will enable
> > all warnings throughout the program regardless of whether warnings
> > we
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:03:54 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>It is one hell of a burden to find a missing 'use strict' or 'use warnings'.
>'Well, type them then' you say. Right, and always type ';' at each line, or 1;
>at the end of each file. Its as unavoidable as a *syntax error*, which is the
>
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:16:21PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> The things you mention are procedural. And as tempting as it is to enforce a
> little vigor on procedure, I agree with you. I don't want to make a coding
> architecture on by default..
The decision to write tests and docs is proce
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:30:50PM -, Paul Marquess wrote:
> From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> ...
> > I'm beginning to think there should be an extra flag that turns
> > *on* warnings
> > even if 'no warnings' is explicitly stated. This is the 'enable
> > me to help you
From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> I'm beginning to think there should be an extra flag that turns
> *on* warnings
> even if 'no warnings' is explicitly stated. This is the 'enable
> me to help you
> out' flag. That way, it would be a lot easier for me as a module
> consume
> > --- t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 05:58:06 1.1
> > +++ t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 06:09:10
>
> Applied, thanks.
(Had to add run/*.t to the list of testables in t/TEST.)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:11:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
> >
> > ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
which was OK.
--
You're not Dave. Who are you?
> print < I consider a module without tests or documentation to be a syntax
> error. Maybe perl should refuse to run a module without POD and
> MakeMaker should refuse to install a module without tests unless given
> a special flag. Then people will sometimes forget to use that flag
> and they'l
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
>
> ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
> which was OK.
Both Simon's and Peter'
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Why this difference depending on whether I reference a module with an
> absolute path or a relative one?
That's very, umm... interesting. Hmm. Post it to p5p, see what happens.
At 02:49 PM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > >No, there will probably be a big push to shut it off, based on
> > >historical reactions to this sort of thing.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something; I'm sure the philosophy is for
At 02:49 PM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>PERL5OPT='-Mwarnings -Mstrict' perl -wle 'print keys %INC'
>unkown warnings category '-Mstrict' at -e line 0
>BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
>
>It seems to be parsing that as: C. IMHO this
>is a bug.
Yes, MJD pointed it out last November i
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 01:31:27PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I thought that was the problem you were having. Forgetting to type
> > "use strict" in your programs.
>
> No -- its *anywhere* that you write scripts/modules/what have you. Anywhere
> you miss it, it is a syntax error to me.
I
oops -- posted to perl6-language by mistake...
sorry,
Ed
Oops. Forgot a few points. I said that you should give me the courtesy of
responding to all of my points, and
> I think we're rapidly approaching "agree to disagree" territory here.
No we are not. If you come up with some good c
Oops. Forgot a few points. I said that you should give me the courtesy of
responding to all of my points, and
> I think we're rapidly approaching "agree to disagree" territory here.
No we are not. If you come up with some good counter arguments, maybe. I am the
first person to admit when someo
> I thought that was the problem you were having. Forgetting to type
> "use strict" in your programs.
No -- its *anywhere* that you write scripts/modules/what have you. Anywhere
you miss it, it is a syntax error to me.
> Modules? Modules should have test suites. A simple test would be to
> ch
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> >No, there will probably be a big push to shut it off, based on
> >historical reactions to this sort of thing.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something; I'm sure the philosophy is for the standard
> distribution to be -w clean, so shouldn't e
At 02:47 AM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Yes, but like it or not, they have over 10 years of precedent behind
> > >them. We're used to this situation, the screaming has already been
> > >done, the scabs are healed over. Let's not pick at them.
> >
> > I've always picked at 'em...
At 02:37 AM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:03:54PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Right now, I do a search on the standard distribution, and I see
> > 'use warnings::register' in 13 out of 270 modules. Make 'use warnings' the
> > default, and you'd bet that t
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Help me out here. You're saying:
User: perl -w myprogram.pl
Perl: Name "main::x" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
Use of uninitialized value in division (/) at myprogram.pl line 5.
Use of uninitialized v
I think we're rapidly approaching "agree to disagree" territory here.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:03:54PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Right now, I do a search on the standard distribution, and I see
> 'use warnings::register' in 13 out of 270 modules. Make 'use warnings' the
> default, and y
At 11:00 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:52:22PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > S'not about saving keystrokes, as many times as I do type the same things
> > in every file; it's about giving newbies the right introduction to the
> > language and providing appr
At 11:00 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > strict/warnings are not that picky; the odds that the code is more wrong
> > than right are very good if they complain. "But it produces the right
> > answer" is not a defence. You know that; why else would you develop with
> > them? Anyon
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:13:07PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > > Its because '-w'
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:52:22PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> S'not about saving keystrokes, as many times as I do type the same things
> in every file; it's about giving newbies the right introduction to the
> language and providing appropriate feedback at the appropriate level of
> individua
At 10:13 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *want* a global switch. I want the ability to never have to forget to
> type
> > 'use warnings' in a package and track it down for hour upon hour. Or 'use
> > strict'.
I do
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > Its because '-w' is a global switch.
> >
> > What about the new lexical warnings? "use wa
At 09:36 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:08:20PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > But if you want P6 to be so backwards
> > compatible that the largest issues are smaller than "@", an awful lot of
> > good stuff ain't gonna make it in, it seems to me. 'Sides, w
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:08:20PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> >Come to think of it, what language or popular compiler does have
> >run-time (not compile-time) warnings on by default?
>
> Er, Perl is loose enough that those run-time warnings substitute for only a
> part of the kind of strictness
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Its because '-w' is a global switch.
>
> What about the new lexical warnings? "use warnings"?
umm... that's part of what this is all about. People don't have
At 08:41 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>In the same way that I unconsciously type '-wle' in all my one-liners,
>people will write '-q'.
Not if we bury the documentation for -q somewhere devilishly difficult to
find...
Redirected to -strict to save the sanity of thousands of people who don't care.
At 03:48 PM 2/16/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Its a fine rationale, but I'm very, very loathe to implicitly split
> > Perl into two seperate languages based on what the filename is.
>
>Why? Its not the filename
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Its because '-w' is a global switch.
What about the new lexical warnings? "use warnings"?
> > I'm not sure what you mean by a policy. Do you mean you want people
> > to have to say C explicitly? Do you want to
> > make it a co
At 05:33 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is a cross-over from perl6-language.
Good, I love cross-overs. It's not as good as a The Tick/Eraserhead
cross-over, but it'll do.
>First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm *not* arguing against
>the advantages of having strict and
I'm moving this over to perl6-language-strict.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:48:22PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Why? Its not the filename, its how its used -
>
> require("A"); # library - strict, warnings on
> use A;# library - strict, warnings on
> do "A"# li
> > Basically, I want '-w' back as a useful tool.
>
> That's interesting, why isn't it useful now? And why is that related
> to making it the default? (I'm honestly curious)
Its because '-w' is a global switch. To wit:
--AA.pm--
my $a = undef;
print $a;
--a.p--
use AA;
my $a = undef;
pri
This is a cross-over from perl6-language.
First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm *not* arguing against
the advantages of having strict and warnings on. I turn them on for
every program I write (except strict for one-liners) and strongly
advocate that everyone else do the same. However,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:33:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > 1) be lax on warnings and strict in a script, assume strictness and
> >warnings in the modules. Rationale: in a script, you really
> >ha
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> 1) be lax on warnings and strict in a script, assume strictness and
>warnings in the modules. Rationale: in a script, you really
> have an audience of one. With few exceptions, you are only
>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:51:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can we take this thread over to perl6-language-strict? Its where it
> belongs. Then you can argue to your heart's content and let us know
> when you've reached a conclusion.
Ok, that seems fair enough. But I really don't think
> Why with `my' I do need them? Why don't these behave the same?
Because the precedence is different.
Remember, 'my' is a lexical construct.
It does not "return" a value, and it does not
take "arguments" -- not in the runtime sense.
It applies only to literal variable symbols.
It is meaningless (
Can we take this thread over to perl6-language-strict? Its where it
belongs. Then you can argue to your heart's content and let us know
when you've reached a conclusion.
Edward Peschko wrote:
> And don't dismiss 1 as trivial. I personally have spent hours
> tracking down simple bugs that I otherwise would have found
> within SECONDS with 'use strict'.
Which is why, after going through this twice, I now habitually
blow in 'use strict' without a moment's thought.
(
John Porter wrote:
> > Having `my' with the same precedence rules as `print' for example,
>
> 'my' is not 'print', it is not like 'print', is not comparable
> to 'print'. Please stop with the bogus comparisons.
>
Agree they're different (one is compile-time, other runtime, and much more
differe
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > As for the -q thing, I think it is far *less* of a burden to add "use
> > strict" and "use warnings" when you're writing a big piece of code. When
> > you're writing 5 lines, every extra character counts. When you're
> > writing 500 or 5000 lines
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Even with warnings on, they are all too often ignored. Just today I
> got an email from a friend asking "why doesn't this program work"?
> The program was throwing a warning, but he'd ignored it. Turns out it
> was one of the problems. And he's no newbie.
Bizarre.
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:38, Branden wrote:
>
> (my($a),our($b),local($,),my($c)) = @_;
>
> What is it, anyway? A joke? (There's Perl poetry, why can't be there Perl
> jokes?) Who writes this kind of code anyway?
Okay, you caught me, it was a contrived exampled. The actual code was
John Porter wrote:
> Come on. What's so hard about knowing
> ( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables, and
> my( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables declared local.
> Answer: nothing.
>
If you see some code saying
my $a, $b, $c;
Would you say $b and $c are subject to a different scoping
Edward Peschko wrote:
> NOTE: to perl5 users - by default, perl is doing more up-front error checking.
> To get the old behavior, you can say 'perl -q' in front of your scripts,
Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
So chan
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Let alone that this:
>my $x, $y, $z;
> Doesn't DWIM, again according to what most people think.
Come on. What's so hard about knowing
( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables, and
my( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables declared local.
Answer: nothing.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:14:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Was this trip really necessary?
> I've argued why warnings should be on by default (except in one-liners)
> and lost. Its all been said, guys.
hmm. It seemed like the argument went pretty good this time around.
> Even with wa
Was this trip really necessary?
Read this thread from back in September.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00167.html
There's also a whole mailing list devoted to this.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
I've argued why warnings should be on by default (except in one-liners)
and lost. Its all been said, guys.
I guess this was what was meant by 'put your asbestos gloves on'.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:57:31PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
> forgotten
> > about it?
>
> T
On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
forgotten
> about it?
Then it isn't, technically, a perl problem.
> How many times have I wanted to use '-w' but was not able to because
> of all the junk that comes ou
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:54:37PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Right, but what I don't understand is that its two extra characters at the end
> > of a command line... whats the big deal about typing '-q' on one line in
> > scripts? Its easy enough to advertise '-q' and
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:02:10PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> If we're interested in increased CPAN quality, there's a bunch of stuff
> we can do.
See also, CPANTS (totally vaporware, but its a plan)
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00148.html
> Heck, I'd even volunteer to head up a project to do th
91 matches
Mail list logo
