Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?

Re^3: chop vs chomp

by shmem (Canon)
on May 11, 2007 at 07:54 UTC ( #614840=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: chop vs chomp
in thread chop vs chomp

Anyone who tried to rely on carriege return (line completion) as an indication of file completion for commercial data provision would simply lose the business

Could you please point out where in the perl documentation is it stated that chop or chomp have anything to do with file completeness validation?

There is no instead of - chomp's functionality is professionally unacceptable from the start.

Sure - if you use it for the wrong purpose, and if you expect it to do things it doesn't. If a file has been checked for completeness and its lines were found suitable for chomp, then chomp is the right tool to use. It is not the other way round.

I'm looking forward to your rant on autovivification as another "professionally unacceptable functionality" in perl...


_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: chop vs chomp
by Moron (Curate) on May 11, 2007 at 12:06 UTC
    Could you please read the thread before assuming the context lies outside it. You only had to look at what I was replying to to find it.

    ^M Free your mind!