I think we have a problem of misnegation here.
You said:
A dot already matches everything but a single character.
On the other hand, in several places, perldoc says stuff like 'a dot matches any character'.
(BTW, I've deliberately avoided any mention of the newline character, as it's not relevant to this discussion.)
So how do you defend your statement 'A dot (..) matches everything but a single character' in the face of the evidence?
In reply to Re^6: regexp question
by Not_a_Number
in thread regexp question
by ramprasad27
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |