Re: [Setup-tool-hackers] use strict;

[Tambet Ingo <tambet ximian com>]

On 15 Aug 2001 13:44:10 -0400, Arturo Espinosa Aldama wrote:
> In my case, I just know a couple of situations where strict changes Perl's
> behaviour: mostly annoying stuff, like not allowing you to use undef in
> string operations (although undef eq ""), and a couple more like that. So

You confuse it with -w switch.

> I would first study what strict does, then decide if I agree with these
> policies (which actually change the definition of what Perl is)

I already sent mail what 'use strict' does, here's what -w does (quoted
from Programming Perl):

"Prints warnings about identifiers that are mentioned only once, and
scalar variables that are used before being set. Also warns about
redefined subroutines, and references to undefined filehandles or
filehandles opened read-only that you are attempting to write on. Also
warns you if you use a non-number as though it were a number, or if you
use an array as though it were a scalar, or if your subroutines recurse
more than 100 deep, and innumerable other things."

There's also list of "innumerable other things", let me know if you're
interested.

> Too bad we didn't take this decisions earlier (perl -w, use strict, etc.),
> and now we don't have the time for such a change; a change which would not
> bring any visible advantage for the end user, which are the kind of work
> we are doing now until the next couple of releases, as I understand. 

I'm not saying we should all jump on modifying code, I'm just saying
that new code could be written to honour that. Or not.


Tambet


_______________________________________________
setup-tool-hackers maillist  -  setup-tool-hackers@ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/setup-tool-hackers