«

"Ted Zlatanov" <> wrote in message
news:...
> This example does not have anything to do with the $1...$9 variables.
> There are only 9 of them,

Who on earth told you that?

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
no strict 'refs';
use warnings;

$_ = join '', 'a'..'z';
/(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(. )(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.
)(.)(.)/;
for (1..26){
print "${$_}\n";
}
__END__


Paul Lalli

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, wrote:

> "Ted Zlatanov" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> This example does not have anything to do with the $1...$9 variables.
>> There are only 9 of them,
>
> Who on earth told you that?

In my defense, there ARE only 9 of the $1 ... $9 variables

But yes, my mistake. Sorry. It was too early in the morning.

Ted

Ted Zlatanov <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, wrote:
>
> > "Ted Zlatanov" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> This example does not have anything to do with the $1...$9 variables.
> >> There are only 9 of them,
> >
> > Who on earth told you that?
>
> In my defense, there ARE only 9 of the $1 ... $9 variables

You mean the backreferences \1 ... \9.

Anno

On 20 Mar 2005, wrote:

> Ted Zlatanov <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, wrote:
>>
>> > "Ted Zlatanov" <> wrote in message
>> > news:...
>> >> This example does not have anything to do with the $1...$9 variables.
>> >> There are only 9 of them,
>> >
>> > Who on earth told you that?
>>
>> In my defense, there ARE only 9 of the $1 ... $9 variables
>
> You mean the backreferences \1 ... \9.

I originally meant the backreferences and got confused, but my (lame)
joke was that there ARE only 9 variables from $1 to $9

Consider me chastised.

Ted