Re: Writing a better Modern::Perl

[JavaFan]

tell me what you think.

Well, I don't think much of it.

First of all, half of the modules it loads, aren't my cup of tea.

But, more importantly, I don't like all those modules that load pragmas for you. I rather much have code where I can just look at the beginning of the file and see that strict, warnings, autodie, and some other pragmas loaded. Do not expect from the people coming after you to memorize a matrix of "modern" pragmas, and what the enable for you.

I do appreciate the effort of avoiding to type 'use strict; use warnings;', etc. But then, for me, "use nextgen;" will be 12 or 13 characters too long. I can have my cake (less typing) and eat it (see the loaded pragmas in the code) with 1 or 0 keystrokes. A single keystroke in my editor loads the template - and if I start off with an empty .pm file, I don't even have to give the single keystroke.

But even if I work on a system where I don't have my editor macros available, I still rather "use 5.010; use strict; use warnings;" than "use nextgen;" (or any other pragma with a similar effect). The two seconds extra it takes to type are earned a hundred fold for each developer after me who has to look up what the hell 'use nextgen' enables.

[ikegami]

I still rather "use 5.010; use strict; use warnings;"

One less now

$ perl -e'use 5.012; print $x'
Global symbol "$x" requires explicit package name at -e line 1.
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.

[JavaFan]

I will still write 'use strict;' even if I do a 'use 5.012'. It's a little effort, and I'm not going to assume everyone will know that at some point in time use 5.xxx implied use strict, and that they know at which point in time that was.

Besides, writing "use 5.012;" without a "use strict;" runs the risk someone removes the "use 5.012;" (not unreasonable if there's nothing in the code that actually needs 5.012...), and then have it be without strict.

I never liked the idea that "use 5.XXX" implies subtle changed behaviour other than "without the mentioned version, it's unlikely to compile". I prefer "use 5.XXX" to mean one of "if you try to compile this with 5.YYY, where YYY < XXX, you'll fail" or "this code will trigger a bug in 5.YYY, which was fixed in 5.XXX". The implicite turning on of strict isn't such a change. Now it mean "if you try to run this with 5.YYY, I'm going to keep quiet if you screw up". Not what I expect of a helpful language.

I will only slap a "use 5.012;" label on my code if there's actually anything in my code that won't run on 5.010. So far, I've written next to no code that needs 5.012. I'm not going to artificially restrict my code to a certain version just so I don't have to type a few keystrokes (which I don't have to type in the first place - an editor macro does that for me).

[ikegami]

I will only slap a "use 5.012;" label on my code if there's actually anything in my code that won't run on 5.010.

Me too.

I will still write 'use strict;' even if I do a 'use 5.012'

Me too. I've been requiring a Perl version in Makefile if necessary, and I use features to grab the features I use in the scripts and modules.

or "this code will trigger a bug in 5.YYY, which was fixed in 5.XXX".

There wouldn't be a need for a pragma in that scenario. features is used for backwards incompatible changes, not pure bug fixes.

Now it mean "if you try to run this with 5.YYY, I'm going to keep quiet if you screw up". Not what I expect of a helpful language.

I don't know what you mean. What errors does use 5.xxx; silence?