* Larry Wall <la...@wall.org> [2009-01-12 21:55]: > * Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> [2009-01-12 21:20]: > > Plus if there are separate `.ltrim` and `.rtrim` functions it > > would be better to implement `.trim` by calling them rather > > than vice versa, so it wouldn’t even be less efficient two > > make two calls rather than a parametrised one. > > Depends on your string implementation if they're > non-destructive, since they potentially have to copy the middle > of the string twice if your implementation can't support one > string pointing into the middle of another. And again, I think > .trim should be non-destructive, and .=trim should be the > destructive version.
Sure, but that doesn’t affect my point: if `.trim` is implemented as calling `.ltrim` + `.rtrim`, as I assumed, then all ways of trimming a string at both ends will be equally efficient or inefficient depending on whether or not the implementation supports offsetted strings. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
