Re: RFC 125 (v2) Components... Should Have... And Testing !!!

2000-10-06 Thread John van V
I'm an admin, perl saved my life... However, yesterday, some simple IO::Socket scripts failed to work on 5.6. I'm not addressing that here but my resulting thought is now that the distribution should only include such core components as are necessariy to define perl's behavior. Those

Re: RFC 361 (v1) Simplifying split()

2000-10-06 Thread Tom Christiansen
The reason that this was done this way was for the common case of someone forgetting to chop an incoming line and then splitting on whitespace. while () { @F = split; ... }

Re: RFC 361 (v1) Simplifying split()

2000-10-06 Thread John Porter
Sean M. Burke wrote: The current behavior makes trailing empty fields non-existent, and that's a bizarre and nonintuitive thing to have be a default; Only to some people; and besides, it's well documented. if your code relies on them being removed, then remove them explicitly, without

Re: RFC 361 (v1) Simplifying split()

2000-10-06 Thread Tom Christiansen
Sean M. Burke wrote: The current behavior makes trailing empty fields non-existent, and that's a bizarre and nonintuitive thing to have be a default; Only to some people; and besides, it's well documented. Well, Sean is right in that it is very bizarre to many people. I know that when I

Re: RFC 361 (v1) Simplifying split()

2000-10-06 Thread Chaim Frenkel
"TC" == Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TC The reason that this was done this way was for the common TC case of someone forgetting to chop an incoming line and TC then splitting on whitespace. TC while () { TC @F = split; TC ... TC } Interesting. I thought it was