Re^3: How 'bout autochomp on for -nE? (Re:-p)

So -lnE is that much harder to type than -nE ? What is somebody supposed to do if they want -nE w/o autochomp? Seems like a patch to make an alias to perl as just "p" would be 3x as effective and apply even in cases when -E wasn't used (and, more importantly, it wouldn't disable the ability to get -nE w/o autochomp), so do that instead.

It would make more sense to change -lnE to only enable autochomp, not set $\ (since say can be used).

- tye

Comment on Re^3: How 'bout autochomp on for -nE? (Re:-p)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: How 'bout autochomp on for -nE? (Re:-p) by ambrus (Abbot) on Jun 04, 2008 at 09:14 UTC
I mostly agree. I think -E shouldn't enable autochomp. Otoh for this It would make more sense to change -lnE to only enable autochomp, not set $\ (since say can be used). I'm still not sure. What about -lpE? Would that print a newline? What about -l0 -pE or -l0999 -pE or any other separator? Say doesn't work for those, so you have to set $\.	[reply]
Re^4: How 'bout autochomp on for -nE? (Re:-p) by blazar (Canon) on Jun 04, 2008 at 08:53 UTC
It would make more sense to change `-lnE` to only enable autochomp, not set `$\` (since say can be used). I was about to answer to your first point to the effect that one would have both print() and say() doing the same thing which makes for some less expressive power than leaving `$\` untouched, but then you thought of this yourself, and ultimately I fully second your suggestion. `--` ~~If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.~~	[reply] [d/l] [select]