Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl Subject: Re: How about a finicky printf()? Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 91 14:15:26 GMT Article-I.D.: tiktok.MEISSNER.91Jun24101526 References: <430@paralogics.UUCP> <431@paralogics.UUCP> <1991Jun23.114615.29704@convex.com> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 18 In-reply-to: tchrist@convex.COM's message of 23 Jun 91 11:46:15 GMT In article <1991Jun23.114615.29704@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: | If I want my array bounds checked, I'll do so myself, using the defined() | operator or $# or something else. Use -w if you're worried about | inappropriately using something before it's defined. As for printf and | sprintf behaving as they do, this makes it easier to write variatic | functions: sprintf($mask, @args). Perl is more forgiving that C: if you | blow something, you don't get a coredump, you (usually) just get a null | value. I happen to like this. Except the times I have tried -w, the perl library (usually getopt) gives all sorts of warnings about uninitialized variables. Sorting out all of the warnings reminds me of lint.... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 You are in a twisty little passage of standards, all conflicting.