From: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:11:29 +0100
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:41:55PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
> Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supershited:
> > > use strict;
> > use warnings should be here too.
> Thank you; that sounds like a good idea. (Though usually my main
> interest in manipulating perl warnings is shutting them up in production
> code.)
If something is yammering warnings is probably for a good reason and
shutting them up is worthwhile. If you *didn't* have warnings turned
on, then you wouldn't be fixing those potential problems.
But in those cases, I'm interested in fixing the code rather than
manipulating the warnings. But it's not always for a good reason. When
I wrote this, I was thinking of cases where the warning itself is the
problem. In particular, I have had to use
no warnings 'recursion';
on occasion because the implementers of perl thought it sufficiently
abnormal to be worth a warning if a particular function is ever entered
100 times more that it has been exited. At least they also made it easy
to turn off.
-- Bob
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
