Re: a farewell to chop (good)

It's about the risk/reward ratio. Why go to all of the trouble to include a seldom used keyword that introduces so many bugs? If you need chop, there are plenty of ways to duplicate the functionality. Further, if you go to the trouble of duplicating that, it probably means that it's really what you need.

So many things are being added to Perl, it makes sense to remove items that are seldom used and prone to cause problems. I rarely see an instance of chop that isn't a bug (you should see all of the code reviews I've done on applicants lately!).

Cheers,
Ovid

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.

Comment on Re: a farewell to chop (good)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: a farewell to chop (good) by charnos (Friar) on Sep 12, 2002 at 12:19 UTC
That is somewhat troubling to me, actually. Most times when I see `chop` being misused, it's on irc, glancing over people's pre-made web scripts that confused `chop` and `chomp`. But knowing that `chop` is used incorrectly by professional applicants (hopefully just in typographical errors?), is mildly discomforting in comparison. I believe that I've read before that you are hiring for positions heavily immersed in Perl, and this seems to me like something most people with a moderate amount of Perl in them would notice (again, forgiving typos).	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re: a farewell to chop (good) by shotgunefx (Parson) on Sep 12, 2002 at 04:06 UTC
It seems silly to me to remove it. It does exactly what it says, semantically calling chomp, trim() would be a better idea. Though I think everything is fine the way it is. -Lee "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."	[reply]