On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 09:27:04AM -0800, Ovid wrote:

> You know, I rewrote .trim as:
>   .sub 'trim' :method :multi(_)
>       .local string s
>       s = self
>       s = 'trim_start'(s)
>       s = 'trim_end'(s)
>       .return(s)
>   .end
> I thought about the performance issue but opted for correctness and "no 
> duplicate code".  I figured it's trivial to speed up later, if need be.

Yes. Definitely "correctness" comes before "optimisation"

> I'd still opt for removing .chop, though.  I think only once have I ever seen 
> it used appropriately.  All other times the user wanted .chomp.

I've used it intentionally, but only because it's less typing than
s/.\z//m; (or whatever the canonically correct Perl 5 equivalent is)

The Perl 6 version is 1 character terser?

Nicholas Clark

Reply via email to