On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:40:31PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> This has been shot down repeatedly, why should things change?
Why should we write Perl 6?
I propose warnings on largely because my first answer to most
questions about why a program won't work is "Did you turn warnings
on?" and the answer is usually "No" or "How do I do that?"
> There is a related discussion, which I haven't followed to closely
> about make something of use strict default.
Yes, I've followed that a bit. That's going a smidge too far, IMHO.
It alters the grammar of the language, while warnings are side-effects
which generally do not effect the running of the program.
Also, I don't think they differenciated one-liners.
> I think this would fly better if it were easy to shut it up in production
> code. (I personally always run with -w, but some folks don't want to do
> that.)
You put "no warnings" at the top of the program before you ship it.
Because "use warnings" has lexical scope, any libraries and modules
are left unmodified. So one file in your build need be modified.
Is this too much to ask?
> And the -M-warnings, is taking up a lot of room on the #! line.
I knew real-estate prices were high, but this is rediculous!
Seriously, if you're going to shut off warnings in the program, you
wouldn't do it on the #! line, you'd put a "no warnings" after it.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
But why? It's such a well designed cesspool of C++ code. Why wouldn't
you want to hack mozilla?
-- Ziggy
