Trey Harris writes:

> In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
> > The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always "No
> > library designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast
> > or strict my program has to run."  Whatever B&D you do in the
> > privacy of your own modules is fine, but if it leaks out past
> > encapsulation boundaries, expect that somewhere you might offend
> > community standards.
> Yes, but by the same token, no library designer should force you to be
> *less* strict than you wish to.


> I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules
> floating around that required you to do "no strict" of various flavors
> in order to use them.

Really?  How?

> I still run across modules that need "no warnings".  (I won't name
> names, because some of their authors post to this list ;)

Again, I can't see how.  If you use C<use warnings> in your program then
it is lexically scoped and only affects your code, not that of other
files you load in.

C<-w> does affect all files, but that's one of the reasons why C<use
warnings> is an improvement over C<-w>, because it lets the author of
each bit of code have control over it.


Reply via email to