in reply to use strict; before/after use warnings;

In my boilerplate, it's warnings first. I probably had a feeling years ago that somehow the line "use warnings" couldn't break strict, but the line "use strict" could somehow warn if not written properly.

map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: use strict; before/after use warnings;
by BillKSmith (Monsignor) on Nov 06, 2019 at 14:39 UTC
    There probably is no right answer, but I always use the opposite. I think that at one time, I considered 'strict' more important. This might be an interesting topic for the 'Voting Booth'.
    Bill

      This might be an interesting topic for the 'Voting Booth'.
      ++ I was thinking the same thing. You can submit your idea here if you want. Although since you can also have an implicit strict by selecting a version, and use the shebang options to enable warnings that's a lot of different ways to do basically the same thing.
      #!/usr/bin/perl -W # warnings enabled globally on previous line use v5.20; # implicit use strict; use strict; # No impact use warnings; # No impact

      Personally it's always strict then warnings (in that order), sometimes preceded by the version (I always have an explicit strict even when implicitly activated).

      Edit: whoops, choroba already submitted the poll idea

        Node 11108370 if anyone's looking for it.

        $_="msh210";$"=$\;@_=@{[split//,uc]}[2,0];$_="@_$\1";$\=$/;++$_[0]for$...1;print lc substr crypt($_,"@_"),1,6
Re^2: use strict; before/after use warnings;
by msh210 (Monk) on Nov 06, 2019 at 14:24 UTC

    Interesting. Can it, though? Edit to clarify: Was the feeling correct, though?

    $_="msh210";$"=$\;@_=@{[split//,uc]}[2,0];$_="@_$\1";$\=$/;++$_[0]for$...1;print lc substr crypt($_,"@_"),1,6