Dual-life and autodie (Pumpking input appreciated)

2008/7/5 Paul Fenwick said:
Abigail wrote:
>
>4) I haven't looked how autodie is implemented, so I don't even know
>whether
>it would fit my own criteria for inclusion in the alternate reality
>where
>I am the perl release dictator.
>
Neither Fatal nor autodie are tightly coupled to the internals of Perl; the
only real dependency is on the behaviour of %^H in 5.8 and 5.10. Using the
Abigail test, there's no reason for either of them to be in the core.
>
Having said that, Fatal already is in the core, so people are going to
expect it to remain there. Autodie is implemented on top of Fatal (they
share the same guts) and is tightly bound to Fatal.
>
My argument for putting autodie into the core is that in almost every
circumstance where people are currently using Fatal, autodie would be a
better choice. There's no action from a distance (it's lexically scoped,
not packaged scoped), there are better error messages (Fatal's errors are
*way* too ugly), it throws real exception objects (which stringify to nice
messages), and it's easy to subclass to your needs (if you want to do
localisation, or use a different exception system, or just add your own
error handlers).

I tend to agree with those reasons (and I don't like the current coreish
Fatal.) So yes, I'll apply a patch to add autodie to the core. Please send one.
(Sorry for responding that late, by the way.)