Typically, if you need to turn off strictness, something needs rethinking, in my experience.
That, I disagree with. Whenever I turn off strictness, I do so *after* thinking. Your statement suggests that turning off strictness is something bad, and ought to be avoided at all costs. Sometimes there are alternatives for turning off strictness, but they are not always better.
I think it's a sign of poor programming if your code bends backwards to satisfy strict, when the code could have been shorter, easier to understand and maintain and less error prone with a strategic 'no strict'.
| [reply] |
I think it's a sign of poor programming if your code bends backwards to satisfy strict, when the code could have been shorter, easier to understand and maintain and less error prone with a strategic 'no strict'.
I buy that, when applied to short scripts, one-liners and throw-away code. For anything longer, or anything where a large number of people are going to be working on the code, it's nearly always easier to adhere to strict than to take the shortcuts and risk having to explain to colleagues and maintainers why you've made the decision you made.
In the context of the OP (which is the context in which my comment should be read), where the snippet seems to be a cut-down excerpt from something bigger, I think that turning off strictness to kludge something in is a bad idea. In this context, I stand by what I said: something needs rethinking.
Update: What ++Transient said :)
| [reply] |
'Typically' ne 'Always'
| [reply]
[d/l] |