Tassilo von Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That's good. and that is why chomp is an excellent choice for this >> context. Because the OP may not know, or be sure of, that fact. >> The chomp function is custom-designed for cases of uncertainty,.and >> is perfectly safe in cases where there is no tail-junk to remove. >> Please don't discourage its use.
> I was not discouraging its use. I was rather pointing out that @ARGV > does (usually) not contain trailing newlines. chomp() should be used > when - conceptually - there could be something to remove. In case of > filenames however you either don't have anything to remove or you > don't want to remove it. That way this chomp() could even be wrong > (as John remarked in his follow-up). I'm the OP, so for clarity here: Why chomp? Well, it was really a typo. It was supposed to say `chop'. During the night some homeless guy slipped in and created a bunch of filenames with control chars in them, like this. `Harry is a jerk^MHarry is a saint' So you can see why `chop' was called for. I need to learn to type better... hehe. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]