> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote: > > > OK, I think this discussion should be closed. > > I think the bit about "having a special array containing all captured > matches" might well still live on. The "counting" bit _per se_ is probably > fairly closed, though. I didn't mean to close the discussion about counting. The only part of the discussion that I thought should be closed was the argument about whether $count = () = m/.../g; was a good idea, and the following discussion that was all about context issues and context operators and had nothing to do with regexes. Sorry that this was unclear.
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Richard Proctor
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Philip Newton
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Joe McMahon
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Damien Neil