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
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, 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
> 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
> 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 (
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
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.
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
[resent to perl6-language, sorry for any duplicates]
Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > I personally think that this is something Larry is going to have to
> > decide. However, I would like to note that leaving these off by default
> > lowers the transition curve to Perl 6 immensely for those people th
35 matches
Mail list logo
