develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2007

Re: 5.11 (or 12) and strict

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Michael G Schwern
Date:
December 27, 2007 07:16
Subject:
Re: 5.11 (or 12) and strict
Message ID:
4773C1B8.2000101@pobox.com
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> [2007-12-27 14:40]:
>> Right now, 'no strict; no warnings;' at the top of the script
>> implies that not only has the programmer chosen to not use
>> strict or warnings, they've chosen to make a point of it.
> 
> No, all it means is that they did something useless. That makes
> it seem more likely that they were copypasting or superstitious
> than that they meant to take a stand.
> 
>> With automatic strict, a reader might come across "use 5.012;
>> no strict;" and think that there might be a good reason for it.
> 
> If the code runs under strictures as well as it runs without
> them, then the same applies as above: turning them *off* was
> useless, so as per above I’d be inclined to suspect copypasting
> or superstition.
> 
>> Can we throw away that expressivity?
> 
> Are you speaking hypothetically or have you actually *seen*
> anyone use `no strict` at the top of a script where no strictures
> were previously enabled? And if you have, do you *know* their
> motivation?

 <Schwern> mugwump:  What in the world are you talking about re: automatic strict?
 <Schwern> Who puts "no strict; no warnings" on their programs?
 <mugwump> :->
 <Schwern> Was that reply a joke?
 <mugwump> yes
 <Schwern> Email is the best poker face.
 <mugwump> yeah


-- 
package Outer::Space;  use Test::More tests => 9;

Thread Previous | Thread Next


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