Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

> I personally think that this is something Larry is going to have to
> decide. However, I would like to note that leaving these off by default
> lowers the transition curve to Perl 6 immensely for those people that
> use Perl as a glue/scripting/sysadmin language.

Right, but what I don't understand is that its two extra characters at the end
of a command line... whats the big deal about typing '-q' on one line in 
scripts? Its easy enough to advertise '-q' and put it in big lights...

My point is that '-w' is pretty much useless because people contribute modules 
to CPAN that don't have '-w' turned on, and you get lots of junk output from 
your scripts because other people don't adhere to the '-w'.

Hell, *I* don't use '-w' because of this.

> Key: Not everyone becomes a Perl expert. Many people never leave
> novice/intermediate level. This doesn't mean that we should design the
> language for these people, but it also doesn't mean we should thumb our
> noses at them.

So - why is it a religious issue then? I respect the fact that you want to 
write scripts without 'use strict'. I do this all the time. But I really think
that its a small price to pay to put '-q' on the #!/usr/bin/perl command line
for the vast benefits that it would give us all as far as CPAN goes.

So - in the place of a '-q', would you support a mechanism for making sure that
CPAN is '-w' clean? If so, how would you enforce it?

Ed

(
ps - if you want to take this offline, its fine by me. If this issue has been
covered before, you can tell me the arguments for/against it. 

But right now I do consider '-w' broken because of this; and it doesn't 
give me much comfort that lots of the modules on CPAN could have hidden bugs 
in them because -w is too difficult to use.
)

• Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs by Edward Peschko
• Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs) by Nathan Wiger