How about leaving readline as it now is and defining readln() to be chomp(readline())?
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 4:26:48 PM UTC-7, Jeff Waller wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 12, 2014 6:02:44 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >> Making STDIN consistently the default input stream and STDOUT >> consistently the default output stream is right – any inconsistency there >> is just an oversight. Could you open an issue? I don't care for the >> renaming to readln myself. I've often considered the idea that lines should >> be chomped by default but there is something really nice about the fact >> that you can just print all the lines you get and the output is identical >> to the input. >> > > Oh man, reaction! I've answered below, also, what do you think of the > idea? > > ##Behavior of readlines > > Make issue? sure can; [like this?]( > https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6511) > > ##readline vs. readln > Seems like a lot asking for just 2 characters or even talking about it. > It does make a difference though; It does distinguish Julia from other > languages. Does it need those 2 letters? It does feel clearer, but at > what expense? I'm not sure actually. But consider *JQuery*'s ***$***. > it's just an alias for ****jquery***; the sole reason for its existence is > so people don't have to type 5 extra letters. But then, that's 5 letters, > not 2, and it so many people use JQuery, it saves thousands of man-hours. > > ##readline returning '\n' > It's interesting, but, In my experience so far, this is just cumbersome. > Almost always you want ***chomp(readline())*** especially in the context > of ***readline*** where the expectation is read a *line* of input where a > *line* is defined as all of those characters delimited by '\n'. From the > compactness perspective, the *read a line* idiom is an extra function call > ***chomp*** and 7 characters more than it would otherwise be if the > situation were reversed. >
