Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2011
> From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:shlomif@shlomifish.org] > "Konovalov, Vadim wrote: > > > From: Jesse Vincent [mailto:jesse@fsck.com] > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:49:15PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > > I'm issuing this "request-for-comments" to see if anyone > > > can see a good reason > > > > why I (or someone else who volunteers to do that) > should not convert > > > > "lib/perl5db.pl" (which implements "perl -d") to "use strict;" > > > > and "use warnings;"? If everyone is OK with that, then I'd > > > like to try doing > > > > exactly that. > > > > > > I'd love to see it happen. > > > > Bad idea. > > > > What exactly benefits are? > > The same benefits of having "strict" and "warnings" in any > code: less potential > bugs, introducing less bugs in the future, etc. this logic does not work here, because perl5db.pl is not "any code". Due to specifics of perl debugger interface. I see a very special beauty of having all implemented in a single file having some 322,595 bytes in size. Adding modularity there will bring us forest of unneeded files and then introduce bugs. Once again: perl5db is some highly efficient implemented internals that is not "any code" starving for "use strict" > > > What is bad in a strategy "don't fix things unless they are broken" > > > > See: > > * > http://szabgab.com/what-does--if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it--re > ally-mean.html I browsed it and I do not buy it. Sorry. There is some idea there, but not at all true. IMHO. > > * http://shlomif-tech.livejournal.com/37969.html OMG. tl;dr :) :) Regards, Vadim.Thread Previous | Thread Next