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
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 not
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
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 error in
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. The
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
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 error in
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
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
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
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 Perl
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
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 say time
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 the
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 probably
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 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 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 undef
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 BD? well,
we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
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.
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
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 $c are subject to a different scoping rule
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:38, Branden wrote:
(my($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:
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
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, 2
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
[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 that
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
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 put it
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 out
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?
Then it
32 matches
Mail list logo
