On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:51:01AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> >Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>My take: we should document this better, but it ain't broke so it
> >>>don't need fixing,
> >>>
> >>Actually, my take on your analysis is that there should be a way
> >>to get at "use warnings" (I assume that's disallowed in trusted
> >>plperl).
> >
> >Yes, we can't allow "use" in trusted code. But we could turn it on
> >in plperl.c, just as we can turn on strict mode, and HEAD already
> >has the infrastructure for logging lexical warnings - that's a new
> >feature. I will investigate turning the switch.
> >
>
> I spoke a bit rashly here. The only way I have been able to make it
> work so far in the Safe container is via the global -w flag -
> everything else I tried failed, although it worked just fine for
> untrusted code. I don't have lots of time to spend working out why.
> Another issue is that the warnings pragma is fairly recent, and so
> might break on older perls anyway, so just using -w might be the
> best way to go, if we do anything. However, this turns on all
> warnings (e.g. use of uninitialized variables) and the user can't
> turn them off. Still, that might not be a bad thing. It will just
> cause the warnings to be logged, although possibly a little
> verbosely.
>
> That change at least is trivial.
>
> So what's the consensus? "-w" or just document?
+1 for -w. Documenting wouldn't hurt either.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!