Casey West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it should not mention eval() either. This would encourage use > of a terrible idea. It's neat, yes, but terrible. The FAQ entry is > fine as is.
The FAQ workers mailing list is not the place for this sort of debate. We had've had the debate over in comp.lang.perl.* many times. The "this would encourage use of a terrible idea" argument has been put forward and rebutted repeatedly. Last time the debate raged over there, pretty much everyone, including brian d foy, the then FAQ maintainer, was in agreement that this FAQ entry was seriously flawed and needed a re-write so that it actually gave the honest answer the question. I agreed to do the re-write it and submit it the revised version. I've put a lot of effort into this now but I'm now faced with all the same arguments over again here. But to you, I guess, I look like a lone voice rather than the voice of concensus. I'm going back to comp.lang.perl.* and get a petition together. > "In case of fire, do your utmost to alarm the hotel porter." > --In a Vienna hotel "If you cannot leave your room by the door, expose yourself in the window" -- In a Lapland hotel (I may not have got the wording quite right).
