#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

sub println(@)
{
    print map{"$_\n"} @_;
}

println 'Foo', 'Bar';
println 'Baz';
[download]

That said, I've not really missed this shortcut (even though I have a java background), but if it was added, I might just use it.

Well, personally I'm a big fan of print()ing lists, so I'm apprehensive about changing my beloved println. For example, I'm always doing; print($x, $y, $z). Although, now you've stated the idea of printing the list as multiple lines, it's suddenly become very tempting. It's not really println (print-line), but more of a printlns (print-lines)...

I see this slightly camp module becoming bloated :D

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.

Heh, nostalgia...

Can't say I really miss it, but pressing P on the ZX81 for PRINT was not only handy, but the only way of typing statements :)

Less handy was the inability to save my programs on the tape recorder :)

/J

jepri++

I miss that too! What I don't miss, however is editing program lines "live" on the command line, as it where... where all lines starting with a number was interpreted as part of your (only possible) program... you did LIST on the program and went up and down though "history" resubmitting lines to make changes... ;-)

---

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

()-()
 \"/
  `                                                     

 sub prtln  { local $,="";   print +( @_ ? @_ : $_ ), "\n" }
 sub prtlns { local $,="\n"; print +( @_ ? @_ : $_ ), "\n" }
[download]

-- stefp -- check out TeXmacs wiki

There is a reason for there not being a println function in Perl. It is bad to have two functions that do exactly the same but with a small change. There is int() but no ceil(), floor(), fix(), round() etcetera, as all of those can be made using int(). POSIX has some of these, though.

Refactoring code to save only a few keystrokes also makes your code less readable. Suppose you have five listing functions that do the same, but format their output a little different. It would probably be a good idea to have a single function that takes an extra argument instead of five separate functions.

There really isn't an easy way to create your own println, as there is (correct me if I'm wrong) no way to emulate prints "print HANDLE LIST" syntax. Well, a source filter might take you there, but that will never be exactly the same.

- Yes, I reinvent wheels.
- Spam: Visit eurotraQ.

I realize this is an old thread, but I was asking myself the question, "Why is println not built into the perl language?". I came upon this post, and I still don't feel I have an answer.

Is this the real reason that println is not a builtin function? Then why is there a printf function? Based on the documentation, printf is equivalent of calling print with parameters.

http://perldoc.perl.org/5.10.0/functions/printf.html
"Equivalent to print FILEHANDLE sprintf(FORMAT, LIST) ..."

Perl is a language that provides one with many options to accomplish a single goal, so your reasoning makes little sense to me. I personally would love to see println added as a builtin function. I don't see any problems with a little syntactic sugar if it helps developers to be more productive.

say was added in 5.10.
لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ

sub println {
    local $\ = "\n";
    print @_;
}
[download]

Getting feisty, aren't we?

While I don't much see the use for an internal function named println, which reminds me of Pascal of all things, how about doing it correctly?

sub println
{
        print ((@_? join($/, @_) : $_), $/);
}
[download]

Not everyone uses UNIX, BeOS, or AmigaOS, so putting a literal "\n" in there is simply bad form.

Update:
As Dog and Pony points out, "\n" does represent a logical newline, as it is quietly and magically transformed into the appropriate value before being output. One could argue, though, that using $/ eliminates four shifted keystrokes.

According to perlport, \n represents a logical newline, and thus (often) actually does the right thing across platforms.

That said, nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety. :)

---

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

-- Mike

--
just,my${.02}