On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:10:42PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:55:36PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > : My suggestion is that a match object in numeric context is the > : same as evaluating its string value in a numeric context. If > : we need a way to find out the number of match repetitions (what > : the numeric context was intended to provide), it might be better > : done with an explicit C<.matchcount> method or something like that. > > I think we already said something like that once some number of > months ago. +$1 simply has to be the numeric value of the match. > It's not as much of a problem as a Perl 5 programmer might think, > since ?$1 is still true even if +$1 is 0. Anyway, while we could have > a method for the .matchcount, +$1[] should work fine too. And maybe > even [EMAIL PROTECTED], presuming that "a match object can function as an > array" > actually means "a match object knows when it's being asked to supply > an array reference".
So the "counting" idiom in S05 becomes one of: $match_count += @{m:g/pattern/}; $match_count += list m:g/pattern/; $match_count += m:g/pattern/.matchount; $match_count += (m:g/pattern/)[]; # maybe ??? -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]