Re: C<strict> as default (was Re: RFC 16 (v1))

On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 02:27:00PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> > Because perl is for the lazy. I want an easy way to arrange for all my
> > programs to run under strict/warnings, should that be my inclination.
> 
> It already has a run-time option; You can set the environment variable
> PERL5OPTS to contain '-Mstrict -W'.

Of course, you've got to fiddle enough to ensure this variable is set in
all possible contexts where you're going to be running perl. I'd imagine
a wrapper script will be the Right Thing.

> Now, do you, Michael Stevens, actually *have* PERL5OPTS set to contain
> '-Mstrict'?  Or is this lazy person you're talking about totally
> hypothetical?

He's a person I can see myself wanting to be in the future.

> > Can't we make everyone happy by making it a build-time option?
> 
> No, and I explained at great length yesterday why I think that's a
> stupid idea.  
> But I think it would be extremely valuable research if someone would
> actually try living with PERL5OPTS='-Mstrict -W' for a month or two.
> That will simulate what things will be like for the people who are
> stuck on systems where Perl has had the 'always strict' build-time
> option enabled.  Then we will be better able to judge what some of the
> effects will be, at least for people on the receiving end.
> Since you just said that you wanted an easy way to arrange for all
> your programs to run under strict and warnings, why don't you carry
> out this experiment and let us know how it works out?  (Or, if I've
> misjudged you and you already *are* carrying out the experiment, why
> don't you tell us how it is going?)

I wasn't actually trying it, but it sounds like an extremely good idea.
As soon as I'm back in a position to try that, I will experiment.