Re: How do I determine number of matches in a regex?

[iansmith]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>                There is no equivalent operator to force an
>                expression to be interpolated in list context
>                because in practice, this is never needed.  If you
>                really wanted to do so, however, you could use the
>                construction "@{[ (some expression) ]}", but
>                usually a simple "(some expression)" suffices.

I had read this, but before Randals message, I didn't realize
WHY there is no opposite to scalar.  The POD says their isn't,
but doesn't really explain why.  In fact, it goes on to say how
to simulate it with @{[]} which kind of implies there IS an
equivalence to scalar, but it just wasn't Put into the language.

--
Ian