On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Help me out here. You're saying:
User: perl -w myprogram.pl
Perl: Name "main::x" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
Use of uninitialized value in division (/) at myprogram.pl line 5.
Use of uninitialized v
I think we're rapidly approaching "agree to disagree" territory here.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:03:54PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Right now, I do a search on the standard distribution, and I see
> 'use warnings::register' in 13 out of 270 modules. Make 'use warnings' the
> default, and y
At 11:00 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:52:22PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > S'not about saving keystrokes, as many times as I do type the same things
> > in every file; it's about giving newbies the right introduction to the
> > language and providing appr
At 11:00 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > strict/warnings are not that picky; the odds that the code is more wrong
> > than right are very good if they complain. "But it produces the right
> > answer" is not a defence. You know that; why else would you develop with
> > them? Anyon
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:13:07PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > > Its because '-w'
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:52:22PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> S'not about saving keystrokes, as many times as I do type the same things
> in every file; it's about giving newbies the right introduction to the
> language and providing appropriate feedback at the appropriate level of
> individua
At 10:13 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *want* a global switch. I want the ability to never have to forget to
> type
> > 'use warnings' in a package and track it down for hour upon hour. Or 'use
> > strict'.
I do
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > Its because '-w' is a global switch.
> >
> > What about the new lexical warnings? "use wa
At 09:36 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:08:20PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > But if you want P6 to be so backwards
> > compatible that the largest issues are smaller than "@", an awful lot of
> > good stuff ain't gonna make it in, it seems to me. 'Sides, w
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:08:20PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> >Come to think of it, what language or popular compiler does have
> >run-time (not compile-time) warnings on by default?
>
> Er, Perl is loose enough that those run-time warnings substitute for only a
> part of the kind of strictness
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Its because '-w' is a global switch.
>
> What about the new lexical warnings? "use warnings"?
umm... that's part of what this is all about. People don't have
At 08:41 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>In the same way that I unconsciously type '-wle' in all my one-liners,
>people will write '-q'.
Not if we bury the documentation for -q somewhere devilishly difficult to
find...
Redirected to -strict to save the sanity of thousands of people who don't care.
At 03:48 PM 2/16/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > 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
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Its because '-w' is a global switch.
What about the new lexical warnings? "use warnings"?
> > I'm not sure what you mean by a policy. Do you mean you want people
> > to have to say C explicitly? Do you want to
> > make it a co
At 05:33 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is a cross-over from perl6-language.
Good, I love cross-overs. It's not as good as a The Tick/Eraserhead
cross-over, but it'll do.
>First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm *not* arguing against
>the advantages of having strict and
I'm moving this over to perl6-language-strict.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:48:22PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Why? Its not the filename, its how its used -
>
> require("A"); # library - strict, warnings on
> use A;# library - strict, warnings on
> do "A"# li
> > Basically, I want '-w' back as a useful tool.
>
> That's interesting, why isn't it useful now? And why is that related
> to making it the default? (I'm honestly curious)
Its because '-w' is a global switch. To wit:
--AA.pm--
my $a = undef;
print $a;
--a.p--
use AA;
my $a = undef;
pri
This is a cross-over from perl6-language.
First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm *not* arguing against
the advantages of having strict and warnings on. I turn them on for
every program I write (except strict for one-liners) and strongly
advocate that everyone else do the same. However,
18 matches
Mail list logo
