> I wasn't even aware that "foo = gets; foo.chomp!" would be more efficient
> than "foo = gets.chomp" -- that's news to me, and I'm not sure I get why
> that should be the case at the moment.  Even so, I tend to agree --
> except in very limited circumstances, I think choosing the former over
> the latter because of efficiency is a case of premature optimization.

foo = gets.chomp! # eat the cake and leave it whole