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