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" # library - strict, warnings on but who cares, do is
> # hardly ever used.
>
> eval("\$a = '1'"); # code - strict off
Again, this splits the language into two halves. A library language
and a scripting language. Extremely confusing and sets a very, very,
very dangerous precedent.
And consider the maintenance nightmare. I have a routine in a script
which I decide goes better in a library. Suddenly, I'm playing under
a different set of rules.
Its not worth it. Its not worth saving 10 characters. Take a typing
class.
> > It doesn't make much sense to make 'strict' an easy command line flag.
> > strict is something you want on either all the time or not at all
> > (with regards to a single program).
>
> Well, its the converse of '-q'. If people are too damn lazy to type
> '-q' and get what they want, well hell, I'll just have to type
> '-W'. And its less typing than '-w -Mstrict' or 'use strict; use
> warnings;'
The amount of typing doesn't matter. Its the fact that you're putting
it on the command line when you run the program that's the problem.
The way strict is used, its either on or off. There are very, very
few cases where you want sometimes to run a particular program with
strict and sometimes without.
