On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 01:56:29 -0800, arc wrote: > Father Chrysostomos <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > warnings::enabled() > > warnings::enabled($category) > > warnings::enabled($category,$level) # this is new > > > > warnings::fatal_enabled() > > warnings::fatal_enabled($category) > > warnings::fatal_enabled($category,$level) # this is new > > > > warnings::warn($message) > > warnings::warn($category,$message) > > warnings::warn($category,$level,$message) # this is new > > > > warnings::warnif($message) > > warnings::warnif($category,$message) > > warnings::warnif($category,$level,$message) # this is new > > I think it would be better to use new names for the functions taking a > level, rather than further overloading the existing names. Here is one > set of straw-man possibilities (though I'm much more interested in > picking *any* new names than these particular ones): > > warnings::enabled_at_level > warnings::fatal_enabled_at_level > warnings::warn_for_level > warnings::warnif_for_level I think _at_ would make sense for all four, since the warning will say ‘at xxx line xxx’. If nobody objects, I will go ahead and implement _at_level versions of these soonish. -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132468