John Porter writes: > Being explicit about when you want your lines chomped is more > consistent, IMHO, than always getting it whether you want it or not. I'm getting the feeling that this discussion should either end or become an RFC. Soon. Nat
- 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
- RE: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Brust, Corwin
- RE: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Bryan C . Warnock
- RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Syloke Soong