Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
In <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB2067FE5A6@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk>, paul.marquess@bt.com writes: :> Isn't this somewhat equivalent to the '-w on by default' scenario? : :I don't know how much you know about the warnings pragma, so forgive me if :I'm telling you something you already know. : :The BIG difference between having a "use warnings" and "-w" is that the :former will be limited to the scope of the new module only, while "-w" :switches warnings on everywhere. That means that anyone developing a new :module (in this case, using the skeleton that h2xs creates) can safely :enable warnings in their module without having to worry about the warnings :setting of modules that they make use of or code that will call their :module. This much I understand. However, if we were to have 'use warnings' by default everywhere it would be essentially the same as having -w on by default. Let me ask a different way: why are the .pm files generated by h2xs special enough to have 'use warnings' by default, when nothing else has that? To repeat, I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a bad idea; I just don't understand the rationale. HugoThread Previous | Thread Next