> I think its a tautology. ;)
Ctl-k baby
just like pico
> Now I'm completely lost. Making perl quiet is a *bad* thing in the
> long run. Its a symptom of a lack of programming discipline. That
> you're giving up on trying to make your program run properly.
now i'll tell you, perl is unix base
At 03:56 AM 3/1/01 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>A friend of mine was talking about how old WWII era analog fire
>computers, mechanical devices which calculated how much powder and at
>what angle a ship's main guns must be fired at. They had a special
>switch, "Battle Mode". In this mode, the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:35:43AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Not too sure about the whole -w on by default thing. Really makes me
> nervous. All I keep thinking about is the crap that Java spits out every
> two lines. Makes stuff really look unpolished, and the warnings change
> based on the JV
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Command-line flags on by default [-T -Mstrict -Mwarnings]:
> >
> > We already beat this to death with the .perlrc discussion. You'll
> > break reams of Perl code you probably don't even know you have this
> > way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Command-line flags on by default [-T -Mstrict -Mwarnings]:
>
> We already beat this to death with the .perlrc discussion. You'll
> break reams of Perl code you probably don't even know you have this
> way.
>
> It destroys the portability of Perl programs.
Yup,
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 02:16:34PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Ummm, I'm not too sure about this. There are, actually, backwards
> compatibility concerns. Unless I'm mistaken, warnings go to stderr,
> correct? Meaning that a program which may have lots of "unitialized
> variables" and "variable o
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But we can run an experiment. Warnings can be made default for the
> > first few releases of Perl 6 and we'll see what happens. If it looks
>
> Ummm, I'm not too sure about this. There are, actually, backwards
> com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But we can run an experiment. Warnings can be made default for the
> first few releases of Perl 6 and we'll see what happens. If it looks
> good, leave them on. If not, shut them off. Unlike most other
> features, this one doesn't have any serious backwards compati
Something I think Ed mentioned in passing a few days ago has been
running around in my mind and after some contemplation I think its
changed my mind on all this.
My position has been that warnings are ultimately good, but people who
have not internalized this will easily become annoyed with them
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 autoviv.
> Hence I'd say that @foo[$bar] has NO INTRINSIC VALUE whatsoever
> >
> > Can you give me an example of the former?
> > I can't think of any off the top of my head.
>
> Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
>
> If part of Perl's breeding is autovivication and interpretation of undef as
> 0 or "" in the appropriate context, why should
At 02:18 PM 2/18/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:30:50PM -, Paul Marquess wrote:
> > From perllexwarn:
> >
> > -W
> >
> > If the -W flag is used on the command line, it will enable
> > all warnings throughout the program regardless of whether warnings
> > we
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:03:54 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>It is one hell of a burden to find a missing 'use strict' or 'use warnings'.
>'Well, type them then' you say. Right, and always type ';' at each line, or 1;
>at the end of each file. Its as unavoidable as a *syntax error*, which is the
>
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:16:21PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> The things you mention are procedural. And as tempting as it is to enforce a
> little vigor on procedure, I agree with you. I don't want to make a coding
> architecture on by default..
The decision to write tests and docs is proce
From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> I'm beginning to think there should be an extra flag that turns
> *on* warnings
> even if 'no warnings' is explicitly stated. This is the 'enable
> me to help you
> out' flag. That way, it would be a lot easier for me as a module
> consume
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:30:50PM -, Paul Marquess wrote:
> From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> ...
> > I'm beginning to think there should be an extra flag that turns
> > *on* warnings
> > even if 'no warnings' is explicitly stated. This is the 'enable
> > me to help you
> > --- t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 05:58:06 1.1
> > +++ t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 06:09:10
>
> Applied, thanks.
(Had to add run/*.t to the list of testables in t/TEST.)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:11:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
> >
> > ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
which was OK.
--
You're not Dave. Who are you?
> print < I consider a module without tests or documentation to be a syntax
> error. Maybe perl should refuse to run a module without POD and
> MakeMaker should refuse to install a module without tests unless given
> a special flag. Then people will sometimes forget to use that flag
> and they'l
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
>
> ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
> which was OK.
Both Simon's and Peter'
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Why this difference depending on whether I reference a module with an
> absolute path or a relative one?
That's very, umm... interesting. Hmm. Post it to p5p, see what happens.
At 02:49 PM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > >No, there will probably be a big push to shut it off, based on
> > >historical reactions to this sort of thing.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something; I'm sure the philosophy is for
At 02:49 PM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>PERL5OPT='-Mwarnings -Mstrict' perl -wle 'print keys %INC'
>unkown warnings category '-Mstrict' at -e line 0
>BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
>
>It seems to be parsing that as: C. IMHO this
>is a bug.
Yes, MJD pointed it out last November i
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 01:31:27PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I thought that was the problem you were having. Forgetting to type
> > "use strict" in your programs.
>
> No -- its *anywhere* that you write scripts/modules/what have you. Anywhere
> you miss it, it is a syntax error to me.
I
oops -- posted to perl6-language by mistake...
sorry,
Ed
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 c
> I thought that was the problem you were having. Forgetting to type
> "use strict" in your programs.
No -- its *anywhere* that you write scripts/modules/what have you. Anywhere
you miss it, it is a syntax error to me.
> Modules? Modules should have test suites. A simple test would be to
> ch
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> >No, there will probably be a big push to shut it off, based on
> >historical reactions to this sort of thing.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something; I'm sure the philosophy is for the standard
> distribution to be -w clean, so shouldn't e
At 02:47 AM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Yes, but like it or not, they have over 10 years of precedent behind
> > >them. We're used to this situation, the screaming has already been
> > >done, the scabs are healed over. Let's not pick at them.
> >
> > I've always picked at 'em...
At 02:37 AM 2/17/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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 you'd bet that t
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,
48 matches
Mail list logo
