Nathan Wiger wrote:
> I don't know about this. What if someone writes:
>
> print "You owe me $2, $name.\n";
>
> With -w it'll print out the "correct" version?
With a warning, because $2 isn't defined.
> You owe me $2, Nate.
>
> But without it it won't?
>
> You owe me , Nate.
You turn off warnings, and you gets what you gets... better write perfect code in
that case... which this isn't.
> As a beginning user, I'd be really confused. And then what if your
> regexp accidentally matched, and you were relying on $2 to print out
> verbatim?
>
> You owe me <maingly name="dangly">, Nate.
This is pretty obvious what went wrong.
> Seems really really scary, as does the #UNDEF# idea.
>
> I think Nat's RFC 214 on getting more user-accurate error messages
> should actually help solve this more than these approaches.
I have no problem with getting more user-accurate error messages. But this seems
not to hurt (you ignored the existance of the warning messages in your analysis
above), and might help a bit, even if RFC 214 is too hard. But never fear, I'll
not RFC it, it isn't worth that much.
> -Nate
--
Glenn
=====
There are two kinds of people, those
who finish what they start, and so
on... -- Robert Byrne
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
