Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2022
> On Feb 24, 2022, at 10:38, Paul LeoNerd Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:06:41 -0500 > Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com> wrote: > >>> On Feb 24, 2022, at 06:36, Paul LeoNerd Evans >>> <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Given I think we are now all agreed that mutate-in-place is a >>> terrible idea, I don't think this naming distinction needs to >>> remain. >> >> What gives you this impression? >> >> The rationale for in-place modification was/is consistency with >> existing built-ins, esp. chomp. AFAICT that hasn’t changed. > > chop and chomp are already well-acknolwedged as being extreme oddballs > in perl. Nothing else works quite like them substr modifies in-place, too. But the examples of uc et al. are also worth considering. I wasn’t the one who raised the concern with consistency. (IIRC it was Rik/PSC?) I was more just representing an opinion that has been given weight heretofore. -FThread Previous | Thread Next