----- Original Message -----
From: "Perl6 RFC Librarian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 8:59 PM
Subject: RFC 2 (v3) Request For New Pragma: Implicit
> Request For New Pragma: Implicit
Good idea, but you have it backwards.. If anything, there should be an
"explicit" keyword..
Remember, we want
% perl -p -e 's/foo/bar/g' file.txt
I would reject anything that diminishes perl's basic power as a shell tool;
Programming languages be damed. It's the most powerful shell tool I've ever
encountered, and I'll fight to keep it that way.
On the other hand, I hardly ever use $_ in main-stream programming. I
always perform:
for my $var ( .. ) { .. }
or eat the cost of a local variable assignment. I do have to answer to my
co-developers after all.
Essentially "use explicit qw( tokens... )", or even "use strict
'implication'" would simply make a compiler error for implicit use of
variables. This could also be part of a more stringent perl -WW sort of
activity; just as the use of undef's have been forboden (I use to love the
default action of undef.. always worked the way I wanted.. At least until I
started assigning objects).
-Michael
