Re^2: Detecting undefined subroutines at compile time

Omitting parens on sub calls causes a whole of of weird stuff,

The hard evidence in your post completely contradicts your premature summation.

I see clear, consise error messages.

Comment on Re^2: Detecting undefined subroutines at compile time

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Detecting undefined subroutines at compile time by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 04, 2011 at 18:59 UTC
Evidence that it does work at finding undeclared functions does not contradict the claim that omitting parens in function calls introduces problems. The main problem is that unary "+" or equivalent must be used in a number of places, and forgetting to do causes bugs. These are not always caught at compile-time, and they can be subtle. Another problem is misleading error messages. Three issues from omitted parens came up here and/or on stack-overflow in the last month, but I don't remember them.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Detecting undefined subroutines at compile time
by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 04, 2011 at 18:59 UTC

Evidence that it does work at finding undeclared functions does not contradict the claim that omitting parens in function calls introduces problems.

The main problem is that unary "+" or equivalent must be used in a number of places, and forgetting to do causes bugs. These are not always caught at compile-time, and they can be subtle.

Another problem is misleading error messages.

Three issues from omitted parens came up here and/or on stack-overflow in the last month, but I don't remember them.

[reply]