in reply to Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

I think combining warnings and strict into one package, let's call it "caution", would help. Then we could "use caution".

I tried doing this before, and there's a thread about it on PM somewhere. Many times in code, you might see strict without warnings or vice versa. So sometimes it might make sense to combine both.

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 28, 2004 at 18:57 UTC

    I think combining warnings and strict into one package, let's call it "caution", would help. Then we could "use caution".

    I proposed exactly this years ago. I even registered the ex::caution namespace and put together an implementation. It wasnt particularly well received when I first brought it up, but maybe its worth returning to. Perl has moved on from then quite a bit.


    ---
    demerphq

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
      -- Gandhi

      Flux8


[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Meditations