Re (tilly) 1: order of strict and package

I tend to break strict in the header. So I write it like this:

package Packagename;

use Exporter;
@EXPORT_OK = qw(foo bar);
@ISA='Exporter';

use strict;
# etc
[download]

Note that I am still working on 5.005_03 so I don't use warnings. (And I won't use our even after upgrading, but that is another story.)

Comment on Re (tilly) 1: order of strict and package Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re (tilly) 1: order of strict and package by Sifmole (Chaplain) on Jun 01, 2001 at 21:29 UTC
Tilly, Why do you "break strict" in your header? I tend to do the following, and am wondering if I am doing something wrong... `package Foo; use strict; use Exporter; use vars qw(@EXPORT_OK @ISA $foo $bar); @ISA = qw(Exporter); @EXPORT_OK = qw($foo $bar);` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re (tilly) 3: order of strict and package by tilly (Archbishop) on Jun 01, 2001 at 21:34 UTC
I used to do that as well. I changed because it is less typing and as a way of hinting that @ISA and @EXPORT_OK are not to be assigned to within the module. YMMV.	[reply]
Re: Re (tilly) 1: order of strict and package by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Jun 01, 2001 at 21:58 UTC
That used to bother me, too. use vars came along, and then the our keyword fixes the problem. Care to tell us (on another thread, if need be) what you find wrong with our "even after upgrading"?	[reply]
Re (tilly) 3: order of strict and package by tilly (Archbishop) on Jun 01, 2001 at 22:07 UTC
I already explained at Why is 'our' good?. Basically there is nothing that our does that I don't think can be done better another way. Beyond that I avoid introducing gratuitous backwards compatibility issues unless I see a significant gain from the new feature. I simply do not see that in our.	[reply]