 | | Re: Lost Instructions
|
| (...) m/^Re:\s+/i ? Dan (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lost Instructions
|
| (...) Ya, that oughtta work too. :) Say, I just remembered one thing from cc:Mail -- it puts (or used to -- not sure if it's still the case today) the reply depth count in square brackets between "Re" and ":", i.e.: Re: blah blah blah Re[2]: blah (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lost Instructions
|
| (...) just for efficiancy's sake, you shouldn't put a /s* at the end - it's not doing anything at all, is it? if there's anything that matches the /s class, it'll just take longer to complete the match, but if there's no /s at the end, it'll still (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lost Instructions
|
| (...) True -- the \s* isn't doing anything in that case. The regex could be considered a shorter form of ($subject_base) = ($subject_raw =~ m/^(Re(?:\[\d+\]):\s...?(.*)$/i); in which the \s* is actually needed. I left it on in the example way above (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
