[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Even with warnings on, they are all too often ignored. Just today I
> got an email from a friend asking "why doesn't this program work"?
> The program was throwing a warning, but he'd ignored it. Turns out it
> was one of the problems. And he's no newbie.
Bizarre. I throw -w and use strict on *every* perl program I
write (since I don't do japhs (much)), and I make sure they run
perfectly clean. (Of course, sometimes I have to
{ local $^W; *foo = sub { ... } }
) And I don't find this particularly onerous.
> strict by default is right out. That's not the sort of language Perl is.
> Supply your own discipline, don't make the language do it or you will
> be sorry.
Not to get into it again; but I have to disagree here.
Better to have to put "no strict;" if you really don't want it.
Programming *intentionally* for strictness violation is not
something that should be encouraged. The onus should be on the
programmer who *wants* to live dangerously.
Of course, in perl6, which has much better granularity and
definability of exceptional condition classes, this argument
may turn out to be moot.
(Sorry, Schwern... Couldn't let you have the last word ;-)
--
John Porter
You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
