Take this overly simple example:

sub blarg {
    $i = $i+1;
    return $i;
}
[download]

use strict;
sub blarg {
    $i = $i+1;
    return $i;
}
[download]

use strict;
sub blarg {
    my $i = $i+1;
    return $i;
}
[download]

Another option would be just to declare every variable used in the entire program at as wide a scope as possible, but that would completely defeat the purpose of strictures, all together.

Last is to try to write something which goes through and adds in a my $var at the "right" scope. The problem with that, however, is that in the general case it is equivalent to The Halting Problem, i.e., writing a program that can analyze and understand the execution of another program, and it is provably IMPOSSIBLE. (Before anyone jumps on me about that being a false statement, about run-time versus structure, I just have one thing to say to you: eval.)

In the end, code written with strictures is DIFFERENT CODE than code written without strictures. Turning strictures on in code that was written without them will just make things worse (unless you plan on REWRITING the code, COMPLETELY). What you're asking for is tantamount to something like: "Well I think that Java is easier to debug than Perl, so I'll take my perl code and run it through a java compiler." All it will do is produce red-herring errors, and tell you nothing about why your code is not doing what you want. Sorry.

------------
:Wq
Not an editor command: Wq
[download]