In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bart Lateur writes: :I'll try to find that "thread" back. This was my message: http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language-regex%40perl.org/msg00354.html :>I don't think changing /s is the right solution. I think this will :>incline people to try and fix their problems by adding /s, without :>realising that this changes the definition of every . in their :>regexp as well. : :Perhaps. I do think that, in general, textual data falls into one of :three categories: : : * text with possibly embedded newlines : * text with no embedded newlines : * text with an irrelevant newline at the very end. : :The '/s' option is for the 1st case. No '/s' for the 3rd. As for #2: you :don't care. I'd distinguish the first case further into 'the newlines are significant' or not - /s is often desired for the first case, and /m often for the second. And then I'd be tempted to repeat the whole list, replacing 'newline' with 'record separator'. I have to say I'm quite prejudiced against /s - I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about regexps, but on average about once a month I find myself unsure enough about which is /m and which is /s that I need to check the top of perlre to be sure. I think we've appreciated for some time that it was a mistake to name them as if they were opposites, but if anything I'd like to reduce the need for them rather than to increase it. Hugo
