What do you propose to do, change all those to meet the new purity laws?

Certainly not, even if this were about purity or had a the force of fiat.

However, for those documents which I do create or edit, I prefer to explain those practices I perceive to be "better" (in any or every sense of less code, fewer side effects, more secure, easier to read, better encapsulated, or subjectively more pleasing aesthetically) and, having explained my reasoning, explain the alternative (and, let's be fair, often more historical) approaches.

The current doc policy seems to be to remove all mention of things “we don’t like”; how does that serve the public good?

You may be overstating things; it's certainly easy to find voluminous examples of multiple approaches pre- and post-5.6.0 throughout the documentation. If there were a diktat to scrub from history even the lingering scent of package global typeglob filehandles, the best one could say about it is that at least it moves slowly.

Security flaws? Don’t you think that’s unnecessarily overstating things?

Only in the sense that local privilege escalation errors are less bothersome than remote privilege escalation errors. Certainly I hope that the last line of defence never comes down to the presence or absence of a space between file mode and filename in the two-argument form of open, but I use the three-argument form on my own pervasively so I never have to worry about it not being a line of defence.

Filehandles seem at to me to be the least of several worrisome bareword issues.

Predeclared (but not imported) subs are less a concern to me than bareword filehandles, but even though I know (most of) the rules of bareword disambiguation, I don't trust myself to remember all of the possible ways code I write could fall afoul of the mismatch between my heuristics and those of toke.c. Certainly careful forethought helps as do good habits and plenty of practice, but given a reasonable and well-distributed alternative that has other advantages, my preference is clear.

I'd even write class names such as My::Class::, if one percent of CPAN authors also did so. Alas, that disambiguation is so relatively unknown.

In reply to Re^5: unquoted string error??!! by chromatic
in thread unquoted string error??!! by aji

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.