Bart Lateur wrote: > > It's not "simple". It's confusing. Not at all! At least, not to me. If you find it unsimple and confusing, then I guess I'll have to chalk it up to the heterogeneity of the Perl community. > Very often I do stuff like you > describe, and then it turns out that there are cases where I needed the > chomp, and I forgot to add a newline. Strawman. There are times I forgot to increment the count of frobnitzes, and had to go edit the code. -- John Porter
- 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
- RE: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Brust, Corwin
- RE: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Bryan C . Warnock