A normal use thing, like use strict. Yes, it would mean that you couldn't play some of the fancier tricks but, well, too bad, that's what you asked for when you used the pragma. :)
if I do it right, it won't stop imported subs, nor subs you declare but don't define, so you can AUTOLOAD later. You'll have to have a "sub foo;" somewhere, to make sure the foo sub's noted, but that's fine.
I expect this will end up tallying the subs that are used in the blocks that it's in force, then at CHECK time making sure there are entries in the GV slot of the appropriate symbol table entries, but as I said I've not nailed down exactly how it'll behave yet. | [reply] |
Sounds like it'll work. It'd be nice, however, to be able to say use strict; no strict 'super-subs'; or somthing to get existing use strict 'subs' behivor, but not the new behavor.
Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
You won't have to--as I said, while we may co-opt some of the underlying mechanisms, it won't affect normal stricture in any way. It'll look and act separately from stricture. (Don't worry, beefing up strict at this point would be rather a bad thing, which I do realize :)
| [reply] |