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]
