Now you're picking holes in my ability to express myself. What I meant of course was, that I don't like the strict pragma telling me I cant use globals, symrefs etc. And not the compiler shouldn't correct non-language constructs.

You're taking things a liiiiiitttle to extremes here, aren't you? I could counter with 'and if you took a programmer, that always used strict, warnings, etc. pp. and gave them a language without these helpers, something to debug, how well would you expect them to do, alongside someone that's always debugged more manually?' - But that'd just be silly.

I like automated tests suites (not written any myself yet though), I wouldn't refuse to. There are always new or unexpected bugs though, even in code that conforms to strict. (As I wrote below, even if the code in itself is perfect, it doesn't mean it does what it's supposed to.)

I make typos, I've spent hours searching for them (privately, and at work in languages which arent as clever as perl), note that 'name used only once', is a 'warnings' error, not one from strict..

That last quote doesn't say anywhere that I think of 'unintentional globals' as errors.

So let me waste my time.. Thats my perrogative, and it's my time, maybe I like wasting it? :)

C.

(I'm wondering if answering this is also wasting my time, I'm not trying to change anyones minds here..)