I already proposed that. Benchmarks show that reading a file with
explicit chomp() is easily 20% slower than reading the same file with
implicit chomp(), through the -l command line switch.
And what, pray tell, do you do about the small matter of wanting
to read some files without implicit
Eric Roode writes:
Useful functions all, no doubt. But I would lobby heavily for a new
set of names -- ones that can be remembered! Quick -- which trims
leading spaces, champ, chump, or chimp?
My favourite: chafe().
Nat
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:59:31 +0200, you wrotc:
tr/\w//dlt # Trim all leading trailing whitespace from $_
Eh, scratch that. Too much caffeine i guess.
tr/\n\r\t //dlt; # Trim some whitespace.
-DZ
--
Tell me your dreams and I will crush them.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 07:59:31PM +0200, Dan Zetterstrom wrote:
Why not use the "function" we already got, tr? Something like:
tr///l # Translate only _l_eading characters matching.
tr///t # Translate only _t_railing characters matching.
With "Only leading" I mean translate
tr///l # Translate only _l_eading characters matching.
tr///t # Translate only _t_railing characters matching.
With "Only leading" I mean translate from start/end until you find a
character not matching. Then you can do nifty things such as:
tr/\w//dlt # Trim all leading trailing
How would you do:
# Writer insists on blank line between paragraphs, first line indented.
# Publisher insists on one paragraph/line, first word ALL CAPS.
Step 1: Fire the lame publisher. I'm serious. It's amazing
what people tolerate. Some things aren't worth the pane.
{
local $/ = "";
TomC wrote:
In general, getting folks to write
s/^\s+//s;
s/\s+$//s; # XXX: \z
is a *good* think.
Why?
Removing leading/trailing whitespace is a tremendously frequently-
performed task. Perl gives you -l on the command line to strip
newlines on input and add them on output, simply
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:36:10 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
I'm not arguing in favor of the tr/// hack specifically, but
gosh, wouldn't it be nice if there were a thwack() builtin that
stripped leading and trailing spaces?
No. People should learn intrinsic mechanisms with which they can
chomp() is best used for chop()s main raison d'etre, removing $/
from a string. I say we drop chop().
Nat
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:31:00PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
chomp() is best used for chop()s main raison d'etre, removing $/
from a string. I say we drop chop().
I'll second that motion. We already have lots of ways of removing the
last character of a string if that's what we really
chomp() is best used for chop()s main raison d'etre, removing $/
from a string. I say we drop chop().
So code that says
chop($k,$v)
will need to say
for ($k,$v) { s/.\z//s }
or else something like:
for ($k, $v) { substr($_, length() - 1) = '' }
I'm not sure I find either of
the reason that they're duplicatable with other features, while I want
to drop chop because its main purpose has now been replaced with the
far superior chomp.
Except that chomp() relies upon the ueberglobal $/ variable,
irrespective of the source of the data being chomped.
--tom
Tom Christiansen writes:
So code that says
chop($k,$v)
will need to say
for ($k,$v) { s/.\z//s }
or else something like:
for ($k, $v) { substr($_, length() - 1) = '' }
I don't think chop() is an operation that's done often enough for
either of the things above to be
At 04:36 PM 8/30/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
the reason that they're duplicatable with other features, while I want
to drop chop because its main purpose has now been replaced with the
far superior chomp.
Except that chomp() relies upon the ueberglobal $/ variable,
irrespective of the
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:14:35 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
I say we drop chop().
So code that says
chop($k,$v)
will need to say
for ($k,$v) { s/.\z//s }
or else something like:
for ($k, $v) { substr($_, length() - 1) = '' }
I'm not sure I find either of those more legible.
I would actualy like to see chop expanded to allow a variable number of
characters to be removed and a sister function to cut the head off. Yes I
know you can do this with substr but sometimes when you want the performance
and need to cut up a string into fields. Lets say the new function is
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:31:00PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
chomp() is best used for chop()s main raison d'etre, removing $/
from a string. I say we drop chop().
Works for me. Are you going to RFC it?
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source
Tom Christiansen wrote:
I'll second that motion. We already have lots of ways of removing the
last character of a string if that's what we really need.
But they're slow and hard to read.
I think the word "drop" should be clarified as "dropped from the core
binary".
In a very cool email,
18 matches
Mail list logo
