This is not intended as a flame, so no offence, please. Nevertheless, I would like remark the resemblence to a thread from a week ago: Control Flow Puzzle. Dominus' problem demanded a more sophisticated delimiter, but the essence was not very different. Does this mean we need an extra Q/A entry?

How about Yet Another Solution? I proposed a pop kind'o'solution, then:

  undef $/;
  $_=<>;
  s/(\n\037.*?\n\* Menu.*?\n\037)//;
  $mymenu=$1;
[download]

With a little molding:

  undef $/;
  $_=<>;
  while ( s/={10,}(\n.*?\n)(={10,}\n)/$2/s )
  {
    push(@myblocks,$1);
  }
  print "I counted ".scalar(@myblocks)." blocks\n";
  while ( $myblock=shift(@myblocks) )
  {
    open( OUT, ">$myname" . $i++);
    print OUT $myblock;
    close OUT;
  }
[download]

The use of {10,} makes the code insensitive for the number of ='s. If you would use =+, you would also match ='s that were used in the text blocks. I leave the $2 in place, to facilitate the next match. The question mark ungreedies the wildmark. I haven't run the code, but it seems quite straightforward (aka likely without flaws).

Have fun,

Jeroen
I was dreaming of guitarnotes that would irritate an executive kind of guy (FZ)

Update: chipmunk pointed to some mistakes. Have been fixed.