From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-10-18T03:36:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Non-declared variables

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Nate Wiger wrote:

> Kevin Olemoh wrote:
>> Its probably best to have a strict option like in perl and VB.net.  If
>> I am understanding what Daniel is saying properly and ruby works in
>> such a way that what should be a typo that generates an error is
>> accepted by ruby as a legit variable in spite of the fact that the
>> programmer really meant to say count it creates a set of situations
>> that are very error prone and that is not a good thing.
>
> I very much agree, being a longtime Perl programmer (10+ years). When "use 
> strict" was first introduced, a very similar discussion ensued on the Perl 
> lists about how it was going to be cumbersome/etc. As Kevin says, years later 
> the first thing everyone says in Perl-land is to "use strict", so much that 
> many discussions have considered turning it on by default.
>
> My one comment would be to use a common idiom in other languages, like "var", 
> rather than "n".
>
> BTW, howdy all (first post).

it's a nice idea, but not as a default, consider Object#method_missing,
Module#const_missing, etc.  they rely on being fired when something is not
defined...


-a
-- 
my religion is very simple.  my religion is kindness. -- the dalai lama