Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2020
> To give some concrete numbers, this (quickly googled) blog post indicates trim is the #13 php function in many open source projects I understand how often it is used in PHP. If Perl is used in web development, I feel it will be similar in frequency. Not as often as say, but quite high. By the way, I think trim has several use cases. - first blanks of ASCII - last blanks of ASCII - first and last blanks of ASCII - first blanks of Unicode - last blanks of Unicode - first and last blanks of Unicode Personally, I think it's a good idea to add six functions in other namespace. If we want to trim easily without writing regular expressions or argument options, it's a good idea to have multiple functions. What reason is only one trim feature is the best? As a Perl user, I don't want to split functions like this, so I feel like I'm using regular expressions. On the other hand, regular expressions cannot be searched, and I think functions are kind because beginners can search by search engines. 2020年11月25日(水) 19:35 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:18:36 +0100, Konovalov, Vadim < > Vadim.Konovalov@dell.com> wrote: > > I am against trim going directly to main package, but no problem for me > into separate package > > > > Also I do not see why you’re insisting that trim is going to be used often. > > No, it isn’t! > > > I already explained elsewhere in this thread why Yves' concerns do not > apply to trim specifically and why the suggestion of redress is problematic > as well as what questions are open about it. As such your opinion is noted, > but does not add anything new whatsoever. > > Further, just going "No, it isn’t!" without providing any arguments adds > nothing to the conversation either. > > I provided multi-disciplinary evidence that people desire the > functionality in this and other languages to a degree comparable to `say`. > If you don't understand it, feel free to ask questions, but invalidating it > via "no u"? > > That ain't it, chief. >Thread Previous | Thread Next