Trey Harris writes: > In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes: > > > The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always "No > > library designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast > > or strict my program has to run." Whatever B&D you do in the > > privacy of your own modules is fine, but if it leaks out past > > encapsulation boundaries, expect that somewhere you might offend > > community standards. > > Yes, but by the same token, no library designer should force you to be > *less* strict than you wish to.
Sure. > I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules > floating around that required you to do "no strict" of various flavors > in order to use them. Really? How? > I still run across modules that need "no warnings". (I won't name > names, because some of their authors post to this list ;) Again, I can't see how. If you use C<use warnings> in your program then it is lexically scoped and only affects your code, not that of other files you load in. C<-w> does affect all files, but that's one of the reasons why C<use warnings> is an improvement over C<-w>, because it lets the author of each bit of code have control over it. Smylers
