chomp should have options to define what an EOL is.
Many times, on Solaris, I could not use chomp because I had to use
=~ s/[\n\r ]$//
on files that came from NT or even from MS-oriented unix editors.
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whisper
ed:
| I suggest a modification to this RFC: if chomp() is called without args,
| it modifies $_ directly, consistent with its current implementation.
| That way you can write:
If it is called without args, it really i
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000, Brust, Corwin wrote:
> So, kids, whatcha doing with that return value? (the number of characters
> removed by the operation)?
Store it (in paragraph mode) so I know how many \n's to append back on
when spitting the output back. (Provided that matters. Otherwise, I
just ign
At 07:19 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So? It's an op. Lists can be passed any way we want. :)
>
>In what respect would that be different from a function?
>(cf. RFC 26).
Ops are lower level. (I'm not talking about, say, the localtime op, but
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So? It's an op. Lists can be passed any way we want. :)
In what respect would that be different from a function?
(cf. RFC 26).
-- Johan
> "UG" == Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
UG> and the globals can be used by the magic <> which was asked by jonathan
UG> scott. when you use <> you rarely IMO use many other handles. typically
UG> <> is used in filter programs.
Personal counter example. Many times, I take multiple i
The Perl 6 Librarian writes
>=head1 DESCRIPTION
>
>This RFC contains two proposed changes. First, as it is common to want to
>removed newlines upon reading a file,
>
> while (chomp()) {
>. . .
> }
>
>should become the equivalent of
>
> while () {
>chomp;
>. . .
> }
>
>where th
John Porter writes:
> Being explicit about when you want your lines chomped is more
> consistent, IMHO, than always getting it whether you want it or not.
I'm getting the feeling that this discussion should either end or
become an RFC. Soon.
Nat
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> There's no need for that macho "I can lick this" attitude. Being
> consistent, everywhere, is clearly simpler.
Being explicit about when you want your lines chomped is more
consistent, IMHO, than always getting it whether you want it or not.
[irrelevant timings of perl5 c
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:24:28 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>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
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 a
At 09:24 AM 8/9/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference.
> >
> > It's an op. Arrays can be passed in any way we want.
>
>But as I already pointed out, we don't want to pass just arrays,
>we need to be able to pass
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:53:30PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> > Dan Sugalski said:
> > > > > * Do we even want to allow after-the-fact chomps, or do it
> > automagically
> > > >at read time?
> > > "Yes" is rather ambiguous.
> >
> > To clarify: "Ye
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:23:02 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>That is way too simplistic. I for one think the current behavior
>of chomp() is ideal for its simplicity.
>
> while(<>) {
> /foo/ and next; # why bother chomping?
> if ( /bar/ ) {
> pr
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference.
>
> It's an op. Arrays can be passed in any way we want.
But as I already pointed out, we don't want to pass just arrays,
we need to be able to pass any LIST.
--
John Porter
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> chomp() is basically just a "postprocess data coming from a file"
> command.
That is way too simplistic. I for one think the current behavior
of chomp() is ideal for its simplicity.
while(<>) {
/foo/ and next; # why bother chomping?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
> 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.
> >
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Dan Sugalski said:
> > > > * Do we even want to allow after-the-fact chomps, or do it
> automagically
> > >at read time?
> > "Yes" is rather ambiguous.
>
> To clarify: "Yes", we (I) want to allow after-the-fact chomps. As you
> alluded to yourself the
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:35:46 -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
>I frequently use chomp in ways that have nothing to do with "reading from
>files" and I would bet this is true for everyone here too. For example:
>
>use CGI;
>$cgi = new CGI;
>$foo = $cgi->param('foo');
>
>#as part of doing stuff to the
Bart Lateur said:
> So what are these really good for? To get rid of the line terminator, or
> "Record Separator", when reading from a file. That is what they are for,
> that is what we should facilitate. Not the chop()ping or chomp()ing of
> just any string.
>
> So, let's keep in tune with the R
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> Like "join" the order of arguments would have to be "chomp($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 talkin
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
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Bart Lateur wrote:
> All you'd have to do, is set a boolean flag on the "filehandle object",
> saying: "Oi, I want this chomped.". For example:
>
> $fh->chomped(1);
>
> Then, what <$fh> would do, is read one line, looking for whatever line
> end it accepts, finish wher
Ugh, I'm being foolish. Let me clarify.
map { s/\r\n/ } @chomp_me;
would do the trick, for lists of things that need to be chomped. Perhaps
just a modification to the map function is needed, to support things like:
for(map { s/\r\n/ } $fh) {
print;
}
or maybe bind chomp to a new prototype
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
>If chomp exists in Perl 6 at all, I think it would
>have to be some kind of method call on the string that figures out what
>the discipline determined to be the terminator *for the current line*.
>(Note that under Unicode, we might well
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Ted Ashton wrote:
>
> Quite true. The two-argument one is new to me and I hadn't thought much
> about it. Do you have a suggestion?
Hmm,
chomp { /\r\n/ } @chomp_me;
ala p5 map, grep, and sort?
--
Mike Pastore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
> "TA" == Ted Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> One-argument chomp():
TA> array:
TA> chomp()s each element of array using $/?
TA> two-argument chomp():
TA> does as above, but using the second argument (which is a scalar, not a
TA>regex)
how do you te
Thus it was written in the epistle of Uri Guttman,
>
> if a ref to a scalar, it chomps in place. return the ref? the chomped
> char count?
. . . the point of the RFC was to propose making chomp()'s behaviour change
depending on context.
Here's the summary so far as I can tell:
One-argument cho
> "MM" == Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >What about a > chomp($foo, '\r\n'); > # or > chomp(, '\r\n');
>> >syntax.
>>
>> Looks an awful lot like: s/\r\n//; to me...
MM> Yep. It should-- that's all chomp does afterall. The difference is
MM> that the proposed chom
Dan Sugalski said:
> > > * Do we even want to allow after-the-fact chomps, or do it
automagically
> >at read time?
> "Yes" is rather ambiguous.
To clarify: "Yes", we (I) want to allow after-the-fact chomps. As you
alluded to yourself there are times when you may want to chomp strings that
were no
Thus it was written in the epistle of Brust, Corwin,
>
> From: Ted Ashton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> I don't particularly mind the last two - in fact they add some benefits
> >> (like not modifying the original), which are nice to have. However, that
> >> first one, frankly, drives me nuts.
At 02:29 PM 8/8/00 -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
>Dan Sugalski said:
> > Which brings up the questions:
> >
> > * What about scalars that didn't come from filehandles?
> > * Should the chomp function use the filehandle's current separator, or the
> > one in effect when it was read?
> > * Do we eve
From: Ted Ashton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> I don't particularly mind the last two - in fact they add some benefits
>> (like not modifying the original), which are nice to have. However, that
>> first one, frankly, drives me nuts.
>
>Please reread the proposal. chomp() called in void context
> "TA" == Ted Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> Thus it was written in the epistle of Jonathan Scott Duff,
>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:56:12PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote: > a
>> couple of ideas. one, i proposed we keep a global $/ and $\ for >
>> default use by handles which have
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:16:57PM -0400, Ted Ashton wrote:
> I, for one, would like to know where the assumption came from that there would
> be no default filehandle.
I believe Larry said he was probably going to axe it.
> Is it necessary that instead of typing
>
> print 'Hello World.';
Dan Sugalski said:
> Which brings up the questions:
>
> * What about scalars that didn't come from filehandles?
> * Should the chomp function use the filehandle's current separator, or the
> one in effect when it was read?
> * Do we even want to allow after-the-fact chomps, or do it automagically
Thus it was written in the epistle of Jonathan Scott Duff,
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:56:12PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > a couple of ideas. one, i proposed we keep a global $/ and $\ for
> > default use by handles which haven't set their own.
>
> Rather than having global $/ and $\, each fil
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:56:12PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> a couple of ideas. one, i proposed we keep a global $/ and $\ for
> default use by handles which haven't set their own.
Rather than having global $/ and $\, each filehandle has their's
defaulted to something reasonable.
> two, instea
Thus it was written in the epistle of Larry Wall,
> Before we get too carried away discussing the syntax of chomp, let's
> look a bit at the semantics. What's chomp supposed to work on if we
> make $/ go away?
Right. But that's not yet decided :-).
> I think any discussion of
Thus it was written in the epistle of Nathan Wiger,
> > Second, as it seems common for someone learning perl to expect
> >
> > $without_newline = chomp($previous_form);
>
> This proposal seeks to make things more consistent, which is good, but
> at the expense of being less usable, which is ba
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> Before we get too carried away discussing the syntax of chomp,
LW> let's look a bit at the semantics. What's chomp supposed to work
LW> on if we make $/ go away? I think any discussion of chomp without
LW> considering how the inpu
At 10:12 AM 8/8/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Ted Ashton writes:
>: Thus it was written in the epistle of Segher Boessenkool,
>: >
>: > The magic defined($_ = ) only happens if is the only thing
>: > inside while().
>: >
>: > In this case, it's not (there's a chomp() inside as well), so the magic
> Second, as it seems common for someone learning perl to expect
>
> $without_newline = chomp($previous_form);
This proposal seeks to make things more consistent, which is good, but
at the expense of being less usable, which is bad. For example, these:
chomp;
chomp(@file);
chomp($val
Larry Wall writes:
: (Note that under Unicode, we might well have one line terminated with a
: line separator, and the next line terminated with a page separator, and
Make that paragraph separator.
Larry
Ted Ashton writes:
: Thus it was written in the epistle of Segher Boessenkool,
: >
: > The magic defined($_ = ) only happens if is the only thing
: > inside while().
: >
: > In this case, it's not (there's a chomp() inside as well), so the magic
: > doesn't apply.
:
: Ok. One more time . . .
Thus it was written in the epistle of Segher Boessenkool,
>
> The magic defined($_ = ) only happens if is the only thing
> inside while().
>
> In this case, it's not (there's a chomp() inside as well), so the magic
> doesn't apply.
Ok. One more time . . .
I'm proposing that we change that.
> I guess that's not yet clear to me. After all, as I had pointed out to me,
>
> while()
>
> means
>
> while (defined($_ = ))
>
> not
>
> while ($_ = )
>
> even if the chomp() is handed an empty line, it will return a defined value.
> Only at the point at which returns undef will the whi
Thus it was written in the epistle of Bart Lateur,
> On 7 Aug 2000 16:06:44 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> >This RFC contains two proposed changes. First, as it is common to want to
> >removed newlines upon reading a file,
> >
> > while (chomp()) {
> >. . .
> > }
> >
> >should bec
On 7 Aug 2000 16:06:44 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>This RFC contains two proposed changes. First, as it is common to want to
>removed newlines upon reading a file,
>
> while (chomp()) {
>. . .
> }
>
>should become the equivalent of
>
> while () {
>chomp;
>. . .
> }
...
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
C changes.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Ted Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 7 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 58
=head1 ABSTRACT
The current return value of C is lit
51 matches
Mail list logo
