On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:33:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > 1) be lax on warnings and strict in a script, assume strictness and
> > warnings in the modules. Rationale: in a script, you really
> > have an audience of one. With few exceptions, you are only
> > running the script for yourself.
> >
> > With a *module* however, you should know better. Since you
> > are intending your code to work with the 'outside world', you
> > have a civic duty to make your interface clean. And if you
> > really know what you are doing, you can turn off the warnings,
> > strictness as you see fit.
>
> Its a fine rationale, but I'm very, very loathe to implicitly split
> Perl into two seperate languages based on what the filename is.
Why? Its not the filename, its how its used -
require("A"); # library - strict, warnings on
use A; # library - strict, warnings on
do "A" # library - strict, warnings on but who cares, do is
# hardly ever used.
eval("\$a = '1'"); # code - strict off
The functionality for adding 'strict' and 'warnings' would be added onto use
and require. Just as require is a wrapper around do, and use is a wrapper around
require, the new use would be use + strict, warnings and so on. The only thing
that would change in perl6 is the contents of the wrappers.
> > 2) provide a flag (-W ) which is a combo of 'use strict' and
> > 'use warn' for scripts. Perhaps the -W should have warning
> > levels ie - '-W1' means just warn, '-W2' == warn + strict,
> > etc etc etc.;
>
> It doesn't make much sense to make 'strict' an easy command line flag.
> strict is something you want on either all the time or not at all
> (with regards to a single program).
Well, its the converse of '-q'. If people are too damn lazy to type '-q' and
get what they want, well hell, I'll just have to type '-W'. And its less typing
than '-w -Mstrict' or 'use strict; use warnings;'
Ed
