Re: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

perl -lne 'END{print$x}$x+=$_'

Perl one liners are nice. Don't forget that, although perl is also an awesome fully-featured programming language, it's roots are as a command-line data-processing tool (ala sed, awk and even grep). Who wants to spend those extra characters in a -e?

Don't get me wrong, I like strict in anything more than a few lines long, but I also write a lot of stuff that's less than a few lines long.

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

Comment on Re: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 28, 2004 at 08:30 UTC
This argument doesn't addresss the fact that one could arrange it so perl would turn on strict and warnings for code from any other source than -e but leave -e code unencumbered. --- demerphq _{First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi Flux8}	[reply]
Re^3: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Oct 29, 2004 at 08:20 UTC
Or you could have another name for the binary that makes `perl` assume `use strict;` (and maybe warnings also)… `#!/usr/bin/perls no swine;` [download] Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l] [select]