Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2008
Abigail wrote: > What's the point of changing the meaning of something, and then, > when someone uses the new meaning, give a warning the meaning was > changed? Good point. Would it be better to deprecate Fatal (with a warning) and tell people to use Fatal::Globally and Fatal::Locally instead? OK, forget about that, let's just call ist autodie and be done with it, given that we just can remove Fatal from the docs and have autodie take its place. > Who's going to benefit from that? I was thinking about adding dwimmage to Fatal to "fix" the error-prone behaviour. If that is feasible, everybody would benefit from it. > How often do you see people posting code where they used Fatal > inside a block, wrongly assuming it would not raise a fatal error outside > of the block? I don't know, do you have any statistics? What are the consequences of silently making Fatal work on a local scope instead of globally? It would make code that before died with a Fatal error message now either die at a different location due to some undefinedness (which IMHO is acceptable) or just give a warning and produce wrong results (which in some cases is not acceptable). Is there a way to see if the Fatalized statement is followed by error handling code? Am I insane to ask such a question? I think I need a beer... Cheers, RolandThread Previous | Thread Next