Ive heard an argument that is while practical still bogus. "Dont use warnings 'cause it isnt backwards compatible." Ok fine, thats a good argument, if you are writing a module that you want or need to have maximum coverage and _must_ be backwards compatible. But if your target enviornment supports warnings then the argument rapidly loses its merit.

Also if you write modules (i write a lot, its part of my job) if you dont use warnings (and write for people using warnings) then you miss out on the power of warnings register. You remove the ability for the end user to specify their warning levels and you turn warnings on in places where the original coder might have specifically omitted them. Thats a PIA IMO.

Isn't that the point? Catch things you didn't intend?

Indeed, I do want things I didn't intend to do come to light. But I dont want to be told about warnings that I _specifically_ discounted. For instance Win32::EventLog works just fine. Use it under -w and it produces errors galore due to dynaloader (I think).

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Software Engineering is Programming when you can't. -- E. W. Dijkstra (RIP)