On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Awww, does this mean we won't be seeing chip() and chimp() in Perl 6? Someone, (and I've lost who, exactly) was interested in taking those off my hands for a String::Utils module. I believe it was quite clear, however, that my root-and-measure-derived naming convention would be replaced with something a little more... Anglican. So yes, but no. Or no, but yes, since the question was asked in the negative. -- Bryan C. Warnock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Ed Mills
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). David H. Adler
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Eric Roode
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Richard Proctor
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 195 (v1) Retire chop(). Eric Roode