> I'm opposed to an obligation to replace m// and s///. I won't mind the
> ability to give a prototype of "regex" to functions, or even
> *additional* functions, match and subst.
As the RFC basically proposes. The idea is that s///, tr///, and m//
would stay, seemingly unchanged. But they'd actually just be shortcuts
to the new builtins. These new builtins can act on lists, be
prototyped/overridden, be more easily chained together without
in-betweener variables. Basically, they get all the benefits normal
functions get, while still being 100% backwards compatible.
-Nate
