s/use diagnostics/use warnings/g ?

[Bradley Baetz]

What do people think about:

a) removing |use diagnostics|;
b) adding |use warnings|;

|use diagnostics| takes just over 0.25 seconds to load, as measured by
|time perl -c -e 'use diagnostics'| This is because it parses perdiag.pod
at |use| time, including unescaping values found in the pod. (There is at
least a comment in the .pm about how demand loading crashed perl 5.001, so 
at least someone thought about the overhead)

0.25 seconds may not sound like much, but its 1/4 of the time to load
index.cgi, and 2.5 times the time it takes for ConnectToDatabase to
connect to localhost.

This means reopening bug 76923 which I closed on the grounds that |use
diagnostics| couldn't possible be taking 5% of show_bug (in fact, it takes
a bit over _15%_ locally, redirecting output to /dev/null). Sorry for
that, Zach.

(My tests before were testing runtime overhead - since this is at compile
time, you need to remove |use diagnostics| from _all_ .pm + .pl files
involved. For show_bug, this includes bug_form.pl, show_bug.cgi, CGI.pl,
globals.pl, *.pm, and Bugzilla/*.pm, and possibly a couple more)

There aren't that many warnings we run into, and |perldoc perldiag| can
help for unfamilar cases. It will also stop the logs being cluttered up
with detailed explinations which we don't want/need (This was why I
started looking into this originally)

The second thing is to add |use warnings| (instead of using -w). This
allows us to scope warnings, and make them fatal, too. It probably also
makes warnings get generated on win32, but that may be happening anyway.  
However, I have this vague recollection that thats a perl5.6 thing. If it
is, then we shouldn't do this just yet (I can't seem to logon to the
machine at my university which uses 5.005 to check this, though)

Thoughts?

Bradley