We don't bite newbies here... much | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Step back for a second. What you just wrote is about as defensible as the statement "IMHO there are no bugs." You want to see a trivial error message? Here, stick this anywhere in your code: A trivial error message or warning is nothing more than a design bug. Consider for example the warning If you read the follow-ups to Why no warnings for 1 in void context?, you'll learn that perl has a special check so that this warning is omitted if the constant is 1 or 0, or a few other esoteric values. I don't know about Larry (or whoever coded that particular bit of perl), but I'm sure that if it had been me who coded that I would have missed adding these checks first time around, and only figured that I needed them after seeing how perfectly sound code was suddenly spitting useless warnings. I.e. there is no a priori guarantee that warnings are non-trivial; this is only a function of the skill of the programmer. My point is that, the flip-side to the OPs observation is the burden on programmers to make their error messages non-trivial, that this also requires work, and that the more skilled you are as a programmer in keeping your error messages non-trivial, the less likely it is that users will ignore them. the lowliest monk In reply to Re^3: On Commenting Out 'use strict;'
by tlm
|
|