…and it explains the difference?

No, it doesn't answer the few questions I asked here. If it did, I wouldn't have had to ask them. The answers to my questions are in the many helpful responses to my inquiry here and in toolic's 2011 PerlMonks article titled Get stricter with use warnings FATAL => 'all'; and the discussion that followed from it. They're not in either warnings or perllexwarn.

But thank you for your reply, too.

Jim

No, it doesn't answer the few questions I asked here. If it did, I wouldn't have had to ask them.

Not too get too technical but

What's the difference between use warnings and use warnings FATAL => 'all'?

And where are the differences between the two uses documented?

Both question directly answered by http://perldoc.perl.org/perllexwarn.html#Fatal-Warnings

 

What's the rationale for using the latter instead of the former?

Sure this question isn't answered directly, but the answer reveals itself -- what does a spoon do(warnings)? what does a knife do (FATAL/all)?

So the rationale is, when you're eating soup use a spoon :)

Reading http://perldoc.perl.org/perllexwarn.html#What%27s-wrong-with-*-w*-and-%24^W helps to reveal the more of the purpose behind warnings, so it reveals more of the purpose behind FATAL/all :)

The answers to my questions are in the many helpful responses to my inquiry here and in toolic's 2011 PerlMonks article titled Get stricter with use warnings FATAL => 'all'; and the discussion that followed from it. They're not in either warnings or perllexwarn.

Maybe you'd like to write a paragraph and perlbug this update to perllexwarn?

You're onto something Jim :)

So I don't need to read Shakespeare or Schopenhauer or Shaw. I can just read the Oxford English Dictionary 'cause it has all those other books and stuff in it.

Thanks, Anonymous Monk, for the shortcut. We can now shut down PerlMonks because the answer to every question that could possibly be asked here has already been answered somewhere. Your way is much more efficient.

Jim