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 not agree with this argument of Edward's.
>Now, if warnings & strict are default...
>
>1. You use -q. Not good, but its quiet.
>2. You say C<use warnings> and you only get your own problems.
>3. You use -w and you STILL only get your own problems!
>
>Why? Because everyone's got a "warning policy" (ie. C<no warnings>).
But wouldn't -W still do what it does now?
>The net effect is you can no longer see potential problems inside 3rd
>party software and there's no way to turn warnings back on that code
>except through editing the source. Result? More time spent trying to
>figure out what the hell is wrong.
>
>Your warning policy encourages sweeping problems, not just under the
>carpet, but into the ocean!
Just a sec. If someone shipped a module with 'no warnings', then either
they had a good reason for doing so, and we should respect it and not be
bothered by it, or they don't know what they're doing and we shouldn't be
using their code. More likely the latter.
Right now, if I wanted to impose strictness on third-party modules, I'd
have to edit the source to insert the 'use strict' that no-one seems to
bother putting in a .pm. Hmph. Maybe I should be doing that, it might help.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
