Re^4: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?

'... "your code will adhere to strict and warnings no matter what."'

My general recommendation is that you should start all code with those two pragmata. I see not having to always type them as a good thing.

Having said that, the article to which you linked has a number of examples of no. I'm not aware of any reason why you couldn't use that on the rare occasions that you don't want those pragmata.

I would strongly suggest that you only turn off parts of the functionality in a limited lexical scope. Perhaps something like:

my @punctuation_chars;
{
    no warnings 'qw';
    @punctuation_chars = qw{. , ; :};
}
[download]

— Ken

Comment on Re^4: Modernizing the Postmodern Language? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Modernizing the Postmodern Language? by WaywardCode (Sexton) on Jun 30, 2020 at 15:51 UTC
My general recommendation is that you should start all code with those two pragmata. Before I am too misunderstood, let me be clear that I agree with the recommendation. I disagree with flipping the defaults that have been in place for decades and telling people code which doesn't work under the new defaults is bad code. Forget strict, look at what they are proposing with changing the syntax for prototypes. Are you telling me it's impossible to add signatures to the language without changing prototypes? I don't buy that. It might not come out as pretty, but for a language as old as perl, compatible is worth more than pretty. It boggles my mind that they call out postfix dereferencing as a benefit of perl7 in the p7 announcement post, since that doesn't need any feature flags in perl today: `perl -e '$x = [1,2,3]; print $x->@*'` ...which makes it a great example of how you can innovate in the language while respecting what it already is.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Modernizing the Postmodern Language? (Autobox) by LanX (Saint) on Jun 30, 2020 at 17:51 UTC
I never understood why people prefer this ugly postfix syntax over autoboxing methods `${nested}{arrayref}->push(4)` is certainly more readable and shorter than `push @{ ${nested}{arrayref} }, 4` or `push ${nested}{arrayref}->@, 4` And `->@` should be aliased to `->list` or `->arr` Perl 4 started as "bash on steroids", it immediately convinced Sysops to have a better designed language with sed and awk semantics included. But today's ubiquitous language is JavaScript. The strategy should be to aim at a "JS on steroids". And JS has autoboxing. See also autobox on CPAN. Autoboxing could be a killer feature when marketing v7 or v8 as more readable advancements. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery} Update And please don't tell me it's not possible to fix the speed penalty with special opcodes for a handful of built in methods.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Update