Re^4: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Feb 08, 2012 at 18:58 UTC
This may point to your error (along with a bunch of other non-errors);... ... and a bunch of warnings in other places that aren't under your control. warnings has a lexical scope, while `-w` and `-W` affect the entire process.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Feb 08, 2012 at 19:08 UTC
...and? Let's say you tried to log something undefined, so you passed it to your logging module. With "`use warnings`", you would see nothing; with "`-w`", you would get a message. Which do you prefer? (Or, perhaps, which is more "Modern"?)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Feb 08, 2012 at 19:38 UTC
Which do you prefer? The version which respects encapsulation boundaries, of course. With "`use warnings`", you would see nothing; with "`-w`", you would get a message. Nope; my logging module uses warnings and reports only what's relevant.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^8: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Feb 08, 2012 at 19:44 UTC
Re^9: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Feb 08, 2012 at 20:00 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by Eliya (Vicar) on Feb 08, 2012 at 18:21 UTC
Well, "`perl -w`" is "enabling warnings", too. I don't specifically care whether people use "`use warnings`", "`-w`" on the command line, or "`-w`" on the shebang line, as long as they do enable warnings when appropriate.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.