No such thing as a small change | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
It really depends on the condition that the warning/error is catching. For "low fuel", a dashboard light is better than switching off the engine. For "driver has fallen asleep with foot on the accelerator pedal", stopping the car might be a better solution. If an undef in a variable would led you to deleting every row in a database table, it might be better for the uninitialized warning to be fatal. Whether a warning can be detected at compile time is another important consideration. Having an unimportant condition cause a long-running process to crash can be awful, but if the same warning prevented it from being started, that would be OK, because it could be fixed straight away. For example, the "void" and "once" warnings categories are detected at compile time, while "numeric" and "uninitialized" are detected at run time.
use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name
In reply to Re^2: Difference Between use warnings and use warnings FATAL => 'all'
by tobyink
|
|