Hi,

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "[ruby-talk:03370] Re: chomp!"
>     on 00/06/13, Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela / cinnober.com> writes:
>
> |Moreover I'm interested in why Kernel.chomp is profoundly different than
> |String.chomp (the former doesn't return nil in any case). It might cause
> |these two programs to work differently and I, for one, wouldn't expect it.
>
> String.chomp does not return nil neither.  OTOH, String.chomp! may.
>
>                                                     matz.

So is there some grand overall plan, principle, reasoning, or system to all of
these sorts of things? Or is this just one of those occasional unintended
products of language evolution, as it were? Is there some reasonably natural,
more systematic way to reconcile these things more in line with the principle
of least surprise? If so, is there any possibility of this being incorporated
into Ruby 1.6?

--
Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)