gcomnz wrote:
Well, some form of words() exists... only spelled q:w//, with various doublings of q and w available, some of which can be spelled <> or «», though to be honest, I've lost track of how often the meanings of those as quoters has changed. I suspect S02 or S03 would have that answer.Hey all, not sure if I'm just missing some obvious source of information, but I used trim() as a function in a cookbook example, then realized that it's not even in S29...
There is a brief mention of trim(), as well as words() (odd as the words() function may seem, to me at least), at http://tinyurl.com/6fjda but it hardly seems definitive.
Trim sure is handy and would get used a lot, I think. But boy do I need to study up on my Unicode: I have such a hard time believing that words() is practical for CJK. It sure would be cool I guess, if that did work.
Any validation on whether either, both, or neither of those functions
is supposed to exist?
As for whether or not these actually exist, I'd like a bit more consensus that they are actually needed as builtins. One side of me says "Hey, we've got them all seperated into different namespaces now, so we're not really getting polluted, so sure, let's add anything that's in the least bit useful". The other side of me then starts to say "bloated". I'm not sure where the balance on this lies, and will yield to the will of those better at language design than myself.
Just to throw another question in the works and perhaps gunk up theMany of them will happen in S29, since there's an odd duality that class based multi subs exist in. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but look at http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/19802 for insight.
machine, the link above also talks about whether or not these
functions would exist as methods to strings and arrays. I'm certainly
not clear on what the outcome of that is? I've been writing examples
as if that's a possibility and no one seems to be disputing those, so
I apologize if I just need to be pointed to where methods v functions
is clarified.
-- Rod Adams
