Re^2: Supressing warnings

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Supressing warnings by almut (Canon) on Jul 22, 2010 at 21:39 UTC
I think this behavour does not really makes sense I'd say it makes a lot of sense :) (For example, at 5.8 times when there was no say, `-l` was one of my favorite options to put in the shebang line for short test scripts.)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Supressing warnings by morgon (Priest) on Jul 22, 2010 at 23:27 UTC
Yeah, ok there may be some uses like yours (which I would consider a hack), but in general (at least that would be the behaviour of least surprise) you (ok: I) would expect that when you run a script as "a.pl" you get your command-line flags from the shebang-line and when you run it as "perl <whatever flags> a.pl" your get it from - well - the command line. With this behaviour I cannot run a script with different flags without having to modify it if it contains a shebang lines with flags. Do Python and Ruby do this as well?	[reply]
Re^5: Supressing warnings by almut (Canon) on Jul 23, 2010 at 00:14 UTC
With this behaviour I cannot run a script with different flags without having to modify it if it contains a shebang lines with flags. You could also argue the other way round, i.e. it provides for consistency independently of how exactly the interpreter is being invoked — in particular as there are some operating system that don't handle shebangs (one rather commonly used one is among them...). And some options might be an integral part of a script, or at least important to its proper functioning — like `-n`, `-p`, `-l`, `-C` (which didn't work on the shebang line until recently, btw), etc. — so I would rather want them to remain in effect when I call the script as `perl myscript.pl` .	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Supressing warnings by morgon (Priest) on Jul 22, 2010 at 23:41 UTC
`#!/home/mh/perl512/bin/perl -w warn "Hubba\n"; # script a.pl, produces warning` [download] When you run this as "perl -X a.pl" you still get the warning - even though -X should disable them. Is that because -w (from shebang) is "stronger" than -X (from command line)? UPDATE: The above is crap - sorry.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Supressing warnings by Boldra (Curate) on Jul 23, 2010 at 07:10 UTC
I think the reason Morgon says it's crap is because -w has no effect on `warn`. If you change the test to actually produce a warning, then the -X on the command line is indeed "stronger" than the -w in the shebang, but that's because the -X is always stronger than the -w, even if they swap places, or are both together on the command line or both together in the shebang. - Boldra	[reply]