Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

[Bryan C . Warnock]

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.

Correct, which is why I could care less if Perl warns me about it.

> 
> Second, with the keyword empty (if it comes to pass) the reasons for 
> interpretation of undef as 0 and "" go away. Right now, things are a PITA 
> to get empty values:
> 
> my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = ('') x 5;

I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "".  It's useful.  Sometimes.
Sometimes it's not.  And that's fine.  

> 
> With empty:
> 
> my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e) = empty;

There's no reason in the world why that should replace undef -> 0 and "".

> 
> > I would rather say, and I think it would be more perlish to say, "I'm 
not 
> > feeling particularly perly today, can you check for anything clever, 
cause 
> > if there is, chances are it's a mistake."
> 
> Or how about "I'm feeling particularly lazy today, I think I'll sleep in. 
Lets
> worry about any mistakes I might make another day."

Well, Laziness is One of the Three.

Let me rephrase.
Perl shouldn't bitch at me for valid perl.

> 
> For i maintain that any 'cleverness' that you might have that causes 
warnings 
> in perl6 will *probably* be a mistake.

Certainly, because it seems that all things inherently Perl are being 
removed from the language.  :-(

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]