Re^3: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs

I'd be interested in seeing what kinds of programs those are. Other than throwaways, I have very rarely run into problems with warnings. The most common warning I see is "undefined value used in ...", which is alerting me to a real bug. Sometimes, I think I should turn the undefined warning into a fatal error, but I'm too lazy to do it. :-)

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on Re^3: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 17, 2005 at 16:57 UTC
Here's a one-liner where Perl emits two warnings - both wrong. `$ perl -le 'use warnings; print ("$_") for qw /foo, #bar/' print (...) interpreted as function at -e line 1. Possible attempt to separate words with commas at -e line 1.` [download] And yes, I know what the warnings are for. And I know how to code around them. The warnings are still wrong though. `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Anonymous Monk on Nov 17, 2005 at 17:17 UTC
That still seems like bad form to me. Imagine someone comes along and tries to extend it... `use warnings; print ("$_")."blah" for qw /foo, #bar, BAZ/` [download] Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. (Not that I'm implying that you should never turn off warnings. The OP's code isn't one of those times though).	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 17, 2005 at 17:29 UTC
Huh? What's your point? Valid code throwing warnings prevents someone from introducing bugs? `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply]
Re^7: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Anonymous Monk on Nov 17, 2005 at 17:52 UTC
Re^8: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 18, 2005 at 09:32 UTC


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks