in reply to
Re: Portable length() in bytes.
in thread
Portable length() in bytes.
That's almost as stupid as asking why would you want a pointer instead of a reference, why would you want an int as opposed to a float, or why you would want a hash instead of two parallel arrays of "keys" and "values".
Comment on
Re^2: Portable length() in bytes.
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Portable length() in bytes.
by
ysth
(Canon)
on Nov 08, 2004 at 18:11 UTC
Almost but not quite. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
[reply]
Re^4: Portable length() in bytes.
by
DrHyde
(Prior)
on Nov 10, 2004 at 09:10 UTC
Glad that you agree that it is at least somewhat stupid :-)
[reply]
In Section
Cool Uses for Perl