At 10:48 AM 2/22/2001 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
>
> The basic usefulness of warnings is not in question. This is about
> the *perception* of their utility. Warnings are only useful if the
> user heeds them. The question is, will having them on by default make
> the user more or less l
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
> >This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
> >exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
> >language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing
try/excep
At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
>This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
>exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
>language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing try/except
>blocks around every piece of IO or DB handling. Th
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
Sam Tregar wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the program.
>
> Yup. So all (potentially) exceptions are "fatal errors"? Well, that
> definition fits "almost meaningless" pretty well, in my opinion!
Not exactly. Java defines two clases of "t
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
>> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
>> languages.
>Examples? I know you're no
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:01:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
>default? Or even know of one?
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal er
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 06:05:25PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Are we still having this discussion? :-)
*sigh* yes.
> I do not think there is hard dividing line between warnings and
> errors. "Unable to establish network connection - saving file to local
> disk" means the program is still ru
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Examples? I know you're not talking about C or C++. I'm pretty sure
> you're not talking about Java - exception-handling renders the term "fatal
> error" almost meaningless.
Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the progr
Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time warnings.
A run-time error is something the language defines as being explicitly
bad or a mistake (
Are we still having this discussion? :-)
At 07:23 PM 2/21/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
>errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
>
>Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time w
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > Examples? I know you're not talking about C or C++. I'm pretty sure
> > you're not talking about Java - exception-handling renders the term "fatal
> > error" almost meaningless.
>
> We
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
> languages. Trying to read the value of an uninitialized variable, for
> example, that's commonly a fatal e
Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
default? Or even know of one?
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
> changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
> that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well,
> we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful.
Sometimes.
> > Sometimes it's not. And that's fine.
>
> No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of
> problems. If you get 1450 'use of
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> > autovivification saying:
>
> The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you
when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code
it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish
code, others might say is "horribly wrong".
--
John Porter
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >
> > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
> > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
> > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probab
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has
> gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly
> perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the
> difference.
Can you give me an example of t
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
whispered
> :
> | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
> | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
>
> I don't know that I would s
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for
4.036. I can only find man
At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>RFC 362
>---
>
>=head1 TITLE
>
>The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The only reason
things have paused (and it is a pause, not a stop) is that we're waiting
for Larry
As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
Speaking of which... apologies in advance for cross-posting this, but I wanted
to get the largest audience possible... I won't do it again. At least not in the
forseeable fut
Oops. Forgot a few points. I said that you should give me the courtesy of
responding to all of my points, and
> I think we're rapidly approaching "agree to disagree" territory here.
No we are not. If you come up with some good counter arguments, maybe. I am the
first person to admit when someo
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
> >ha
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
>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:51:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can we take this thread over to perl6-language-strict? Its where it
> belongs. Then you can argue to your heart's content and let us know
> when you've reached a conclusion.
Ok, that seems fair enough. But I really don't think
> Why with `my' I do need them? Why don't these behave the same?
Because the precedence is different.
Remember, 'my' is a lexical construct.
It does not "return" a value, and it does not
take "arguments" -- not in the runtime sense.
It applies only to literal variable symbols.
It is meaningless (
Can we take this thread over to perl6-language-strict? Its where it
belongs. Then you can argue to your heart's content and let us know
when you've reached a conclusion.
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > As for the -q thing, I think it is far *less* of a burden to add "use
> > strict" and "use warnings" when you're writing a big piece of code. When
> > you're writing 5 lines, every extra character counts. When you're
> > writing 500 or 5000 lines
John Porter wrote:
> > Having `my' with the same precedence rules as `print' for example,
>
> 'my' is not 'print', it is not like 'print', is not comparable
> to 'print'. Please stop with the bogus comparisons.
>
Agree they're different (one is compile-time, other runtime, and much more
differe
Edward Peschko wrote:
> And don't dismiss 1 as trivial. I personally have spent hours
> tracking down simple bugs that I otherwise would have found
> within SECONDS with 'use strict'.
Which is why, after going through this twice, I now habitually
blow in 'use strict' without a moment's thought.
(
[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.
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:38, Branden wrote:
>
> (my($a),our($b),local($,),my($c)) = @_;
>
> What is it, anyway? A joke? (There's Perl poetry, why can't be there Perl
> jokes?) Who writes this kind of code anyway?
Okay, you caught me, it was a contrived exampled. The actual code was
John Porter wrote:
> Come on. What's so hard about knowing
> ( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables, and
> my( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables declared local.
> Answer: nothing.
>
If you see some code saying
my $a, $b, $c;
Would you say $b and $c are subject to a different scoping
Edward Peschko wrote:
> NOTE: to perl5 users - by default, perl is doing more up-front error checking.
> To get the old behavior, you can say 'perl -q' in front of your scripts,
Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
So chan
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Let alone that this:
>my $x, $y, $z;
> Doesn't DWIM, again according to what most people think.
Come on. What's so hard about knowing
( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables, and
my( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables declared local.
Answer: nothing.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:14:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Was this trip really necessary?
> I've argued why warnings should be on by default (except in one-liners)
> and lost. Its all been said, guys.
hmm. It seemed like the argument went pretty good this time around.
> Even with wa
Was this trip really necessary?
Read this thread from back in September.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00167.html
There's also a whole mailing list devoted to this.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
I've argued why warnings should be on by default (except in one-liners)
and lost. Its all been said, guys.
I guess this was what was meant by 'put your asbestos gloves on'.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:57:31PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
> forgotten
> > about it?
>
> T
On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
forgotten
> about it?
Then it isn't, technically, a perl problem.
> How many times have I wanted to use '-w' but was not able to because
> of all the junk that comes ou
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:54:37PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Right, but what I don't understand is that its two extra characters at the end
> > of a command line... whats the big deal about typing '-q' on one line in
> > scripts? Its easy enough to advertise '-q' and
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:02:10PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> If we're interested in increased CPAN quality, there's a bunch of stuff
> we can do.
See also, CPANTS (totally vaporware, but its a plan)
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00148.html
> Heck, I'd even volunteer to head up a project to do th
[resent to perl6-language, sorry for any duplicates]
Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > I personally think that this is something Larry is going to have to
> > decide. However, I would like to note that leaving these off by default
> > lowers the transition curve to Perl 6 immensely for those people th
47 matches
Mail list logo
