Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> chomp() is basically just a "postprocess data coming from a file"
> command.
That is way too simplistic. I for one think the current behavior
of chomp() is ideal for its simplicity.
while(<>) {
/foo/ and next; # why bother chomping?
if ( /bar/ ) {
print; # why bother chomping?
}
elsif ( /quux/ ) {
s/$/ (quux found)/;
print; # why bother chomping?
}
else {
chomp;
$x{ $_ . $y };
}
}
--
John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()>... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()>... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Stephen P. Potter
- RE: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Brust, Corwin
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
