Re: Proposal: chop() dropped

[Jonathan Scott Duff]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:34:50PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I wouldn't go that far.  It might say something about the difference
> between proposals made as rhetorical devices ("yes, but if that's the
> case then you should be getting rid of X, Y, and Z!").  Really, though,
> I think it's just that you proposed dropping both chop and chomp for
> the reason that they're duplicatable with other features, while I want
> to drop chop because its main purpose has now been replaced with the
> far superior chomp.

Indeed.  Getting rid of chomp() and chop() because we already have
ways to accomplish them seems like gratuitous reductionism.  Getting
rid of chop() because its purpose has been superceded by chomp() makes
more sense (especially if we feel (as I kinda do) that chop() is misused
more often than not).

It's all in the rhetoric, man.  :-)

-Scott
-- 
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]