Does it make sense to anyone else that chomp tests and carps about receiving a read-only parameter, before it tests whether it would require modification?
Yes. It is well documented that chomp only works if you give an lvalue to work with.
I don't want to sound cruel but you want to modify core functionality for a very specific edge case. Good luck getting it implemented.
It's easier to go with what works. Use a temporary variable if you think that someone will pass you a constant.
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
Re^2: Should chomping a constant always raise an error?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 11, 2005 at 03:35 UTC
by Mr. Muskrat (Canon) on Mar 12, 2005 at 02:03 UTC