On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > 1) Warnings on by default: Tom C is strongly against this. Response > seemed generally negative, and there has been no discussion in the > last 10 days. I'm also strongly against it, and RFC 16 belongs to me, but in fairness to the other side, I think "response seemed generally negative" because not many of them are on perl-qa or are already argued-out by the previous discussion of this on -language-strict. If I had to guess, I'd say there were more for warnings by default than against. Peter Scott comes to mind as a main proponent, and I've also heard Nat say that he wouldn't mind warnings being on by default. At any rate, I don't think this issue is really perl-qa related, and I can't imagine anything particularly useful coming of more discussion of it (thought I'd be happy to re-engage anyways :-) ). I still think it's a really bad idea, but it's also not going to break Perl if they _are_ on by default, so in the scheme of things it seems to be the time to let it go and "let Larry decide". -dlc
