On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Ted Ashton said:
> > Thus it was written in the epistle of Uri Guttman,
> > >
> > > how do you tell the above two apart? by array do you mean only an array
> > > variable? then you can't chomp a list of scalar values or multiple
> > > arrays, etc.
> > >
> > > this needs to be clarified.
> >
> > Quite true. The two-argument one is new to me and I hadn't thought much
> > about it. Do you have a suggestion?
>
> Like "join" the order of arguments would have to be "chomp($thing_to_remove,
> @array)" but this spoils the default behavior of $thing_to_remove being
> optional...
>
> unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference.
It's an op. Arrays can be passed in any way we want. (Though I will
personally drive out and smack the first person that suggests chomp should
be lazy...)
Dan
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
