Re^2: Down-vote Bad, Up-vote Good

in reply to Re: Down-vote Bad, Up-vote Good
in thread Down-vote Bad, Up-vote Good

I'm staring at your post in disbelief. You're not clear on the question:

How does chomp change the contents of the string without the need to pass it in by reference?

To me that's a perfectly simple and lucid question, with a good code example. To imply that it's unclear is simply disingenuous and somewhat demeaning. Maybe the concept wasn't clear to you, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

Comment on Re^2: Down-vote Bad, Up-vote Good

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Down-vote Bad, Up-vote Good by CountZero (Bishop) on Jun 04, 2009 at 19:38 UTC
To me that's a perfectly simple and lucid question, with a good code example. Don't take yourself to be the measure of all. It is the basis for misunderstandings and bad things have been caused by it. As Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame." CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Down-vote Bad, Up-vote Good
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jun 04, 2009 at 19:38 UTC

To me that's a perfectly simple and lucid question, with a good code example.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion