Michael Mathews wrote: > > Like "join" the order of arguments would have to be "chomp($thing_to_remove, > @array)" but this spoils the default behavior of $thing_to_remove being > optional... > > unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference. Well, if we were really talking about arrays, we could do this already, with a prototype such as chomp(\@;$), which would do the right thing for chomp(@array,$to_remove). But unfortunately we're not talking about arrays, we're talking about LISTS. -- John Porter
- 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
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton