in reply to Re^2: The "anchor" misnomer in regexes
in thread The "anchor" misnomer in regexes

I didn't say they were identical, and i can't "still" be thinking of them in any way because its my first post. Reading "How does your idea of anchors hold when there are more than one?" I meant to say that the rest of the post would be regarding how the OP was thinking anchors WOULD be, not how they are. My intention was to show that while that view might make sense with the simple single ended cases, more complex cases make it apparent that the current meaning of anchor is realy the one of least surprise and easiest implementation.


___________
Eric Hodges $_='y==QAe=e?y==QG@>@?iy==QVq?f?=a@iG?=QQ=Q?9'; s/(.)/ord($1)-50/eigs;tr/6123457/- \/|\\\_\n/;print;