I try to hide it, but my first love was Dylan and I'm a
functional programmer at heart. It often frustrates me that
I can't use the return values of chomp, s, pop, etc.
to chain operations/functions.
in reply to How do you chomp your chomps?
Had I the capability to turn back the clock and influence
Larry in his language decisions, I would vote for the
operators like the above to return the value that they now
modify in place, and for each to have a bang complement
(e.g. chomp!) that works the way the current
ones do. Ruby does this to some extent.
tchrist has been known to say similar things, based on
his observations of what people new to the language expect.
See, for example, this perl6 post.
I can't see a change like this really happening -- it would
affect too many scripts.