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