C:\test>perl -Mstrict -wE"sub map{ 1 }"
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Because its not illegal to redefine built-ins. Just silly unless they perform the same function.
I thought the whole idea of warnings was to let us know when we're doing something that's legal, but might have undesirable consequences ... eg, using an uninitialised scalar, or re-defining a built-in.
(Yet another addition to my list of "Things I Was Wrong About" :-)
Cheers,
Rob
| [reply] |
I thought the whole idea of warnings was to let us know when we're doing something that's legal, but might have undesirable consequences
Actually, I agree with you that it might be nice to be (able to be) warned when we either define or import a name that clashes with a built-in. As I recall, there is a warning that says something to the effect of: "xyz may clash with a future keyword"; though I can't remember what triggers it.
Seems to me that clashing with an existing keyword is actually more important to know that some possible future event. And that if the "clashes with existing" warning was implemented, the "clashes with future" would be redundant; because if that eventuality ever came to pass, it would attract the "clashes with existing" in a timely fashion.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |