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. --Michael
- 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. 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