Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2021
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:13 AM Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 01:08:04 +0100, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, at 6:40 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > > I know I wasn't following this issue in detail but I was always assuming that a > trim() would NOT modify its argument and would return the trimmed value. This > is what everyone would reasonably expect. This is the only version that is > actually useful.. > > > This is a weird position to take in the face of people (including me and several Perl programmers not on this list whom I asked) expecting modify-in-place and thinking it would be useful. > > I'm not even trying to tell you to agree. I'm just saying "no one would expect that or find it useful" is ⦠well, a weird claim. (Do you think I would be suggesting we adopt some behavior that I found surprising and useless?) > > > I think this comes down to the same issue as with the "new defaults" thing. > > Originally no-strict perl was intended by Larry to be easier and approachable for newbies and literally called "baby perl". Nowadays there's a lot of people claiming we must enforce strict as hard as we can because it's best for newbies. > > I suspect people with different expectations of trim and thoughts about chomp come more often than not from different generations of learning. I believe this is largely a difference between whipuptitude perl and manipulexity perl. chomp's semantics make more sense in the former than in the latter IMHO. LeonThread Previous | Thread Next