I find tying warnings to blocks of code to just not be a great approach.
I'm following this thread with interest; and no firm conclusions yet. (And I just read your follow up.)
And I have an assertion/question/dunnu: Whilst warnings do tend to follow the data; doesn't their significance (benign or actionable) depend upon the purpose/function of the code manipulating that data?
Currently I favour -w in scripts and use warnings in modules.
I prefer -w explicitly because it let's me see warnings generated as a result of what I've passed to (other people's) modules I use -- when that is the cause -- and prompts me to check up on warnings the authors have ignored; where these occur at use time; and satisfy myself of their benign status or otherwise.
I like to see use warnings in modules (in preference to nothing), because it indicates to me the author has thought about it. I have no problem with no warnings at limited scopes.
In reply to Re^6: Shebang behavior with perl (-w)
by BrowserUk
in thread Shebang behavior with perl
by McKreeger
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |