On Jan 14, 2008 5:00 PM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ivan Shmakov scripsit: > > Believe me or not, but the POSIX Shell behaves exactly that way.
> Sensibly so: what you get is a newline-separated list of lines, > with no random empty line at the end to confuse matters. It is sensible for an impoverished language like the POSIX shell. But this discussion is about Chicken, and emulating backticks there is unnecessary. Even backticks in Perl don't chomp the result. Plus, when you switch to reading from a file instead of a command, now you've suddenly got a trailing newline again. > Well, the alternative is to return a Scheme list of newline-free > lines. Or to return the output verbatim, without deleting the trailing newline, losing a little information and introducing an imbalance between file and command input. And, again, often you just want to iterate over each line as they come in. The point is that it is hard to agree on the desired behaviour of a hypothetical system->string, and introducing an abstraction over such simple code--to handle only a fraction of cases and save one argument--doesn't buy you anything. Zb _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
