Re: Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?!

in reply to Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?!

Because without a third argument split will discard empty trailing fields which, as soon as you chomp away the newline, you have four of.

I hope this is helpful.

Cheers,

JohnGG

Comment on Re: Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?! by Krambambuli (Curate) on May 20, 2009 at 09:56 UTC
Got it. _Now_ it seems sooo obvious :) Many thanks! Krambambuli ---	[reply]
Re^3: Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?! by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 20, 2009 at 16:37 UTC
`split(/pat/, $s, -1)` is the same as `split(/pat/, $s)` except trailing fields aren't discarded.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?! by Krambambuli (Curate) on May 21, 2009 at 14:19 UTC
Ah, great! Thanks, that's something I didn't actually realize as such from the manpage. Krambambuli ---	[reply]
Re^2: Is this expected behavior for chomp/split...?! by bichonfrise74 (Vicar) on May 20, 2009 at 16:06 UTC
This is a good and concise answer.	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom