develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2000

Re: [ID 20000330.052] Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.)

From:
Ronald J Kimball
Date:
March 31, 2000 07:59
Subject:
Re: [ID 20000330.052] Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.)
Message ID:
20000331105856.B185428@linguist.dartmouth.edu
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:31:08PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Mike Giroux (lists.p5p):
> >I'm sorry if I'm extending this argument needlessly, but I think it's
> >just plain _wrong_ to require the end user of a compiler to understand
> >the internal optimizations just to decode the error messages.  
> 
> Oh, for heaven's sake, stop being ridiculous. It's nothing to do with
> the internal optimisations. It's about the user working out what the
> error messages mean. And if the user can't even be expected to do that -
> and I don't want pass Perl users off as that stupid, even if you're
> happy to do so - the user has perldiag.
> 
> You know we have perldiag, right?
> You know we have it for a reason?

=item Use of uninitialized value%s

(W uninitialized) An undefined value was used as if it were already
defined.  It was interpreted as a "" or a 0, but maybe it was a mistake.
To suppress this warning assign a defined value to your variables.


Please be so kind as to point out which part of that paragraph explains
that interpolation becomes concatenation when the code is compiled.


We could just as easily encode each error message as a unique integer, and
then expect the user to 'work out what the error messages mean'.  If the
error message is written properly, its meaning should be clear.

Ronald



nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About