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, 2 lines of "use" statements are nothing.
>
>I disagree. We're talking about the added burder of -q in
> perl -qe 'print "Just Another Perl Hacker,"'
We're not even talking about that. All the -q/-z proponents have said that
it should be implied by -e, so one-liners would have unchanged syntax.
And people who want their longer scripts to run blissfully free of the
ravages of error checking can put -q on the #! line. Whereas the rest of
us currently have to remember to put use strict in every blasted .pm.
>vs. adding
> use strict;
> use warnings;
>near the top of -- not just one, but probably several or dozens of files.
It was only relatively recently that I realized that the one at the
beginning of the main program was insufficient :-(
