Re: RFC 110 (v2) counting matches

> Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> > 
> >         m/.../Count               (instead of m/.../t)
> >         m/.../iCount              (instead of m/.../it)
> >         m/.../Count,i             (instead of m/.../ti)
> >         m/.../Count,Insensitive   (instead of m/.../ti)
> 
> Blech, no. Please. Less typing good. More typing bad.
> 
> If you're just proposing synonyms, I don't see anyone using these
> besides as mnemnonics. In which case, the key is just making sure
> that we pick good letters.

Iwas proposing synonyms for the existing options, and an expanded
namespace for future options.

It is perfectly reasonable for common flags to get short names and
uncommon flags to get long names.  For example, I think that if the /c
option had had only a long name, it would have imposed very little
burden on the community, and it would have left /c itself available
for the more useful application of producing a count.

> I don't see us running out of letters. 

The problem is not with running out of letters.  The problem is with
running out of appropriate letters.

I raised this suggestion in response to Richard Proctor's observation
that /c was unavailable for 'count', and suggesting /t instead.  

> Last I checked, m// only takes half a dozen flags. 

m// and s/// presently take eight different flags. (cegimosx) In the
past, several others have been proposed, including /r, /t, and /z.

> And so on. This seems like a much more productive use, otherwise we're
> just wasting characters.

Characters are not in short supply.

Anyway, I will consider the subject closed unless someone produces an
RFC for it.