On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 01:59:39 +0100, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Christian Walde wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 01:08:04 +0100, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: >>> 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". > > I'm not sure it's really right to ascribe this sort of intent. Perl variable were originally all like awk variables, created as >referenced, no muss, no fuss, no typo protection. This wasn't creating an environment of baby Perl, because there >was no "grown up" way to write variables. > > Perl 5 introduced strictures, and to be backward compatible, they were off unless you asked for them. > > That said, I have defended "baby Perl" many times, and will continue to do so. Whether or not the basic >"beginner's Perl" should have strictures on is a topic for another, longer conversation, which I promised to start off >this weekend. (Tonight, it's getting late. 😉) Fair enough, that was the story i was taught. Googling i didn't really find anything conclusive ... https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=92458 And it appears *SOMEONE* deleted the "State of the Onion" address transcripts linked in that thread. >> I suspect people with different expectations of trim and thoughts about chomp come more often than >>not from different generations of learning. > > I would like to acknowledge that reasonable people have differing expectations of how a "trim" built-in might behave >for many different reasons, including those you name. Yeah, that was the thrust of my wording. :) -- With regards, Christian WaldeThread Previous | Thread Next