From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / netlab.co.jp>
...
> In message "[ruby-talk:02003] Re: Ruby Syntax similar to other languages?"
>     on 00/03/18, "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker / jump.net> writes:
>
> |> What's the benefit of foo.s(/pat/, "repl", "g") over foo.gsub(/pat/,
> |"repl")?
> |
> |In vi, sed, and perl, you don't thing of sub and gsub as being two
different
> |methods, but rather as a single method that is modulated by optional
> |parameters--including g, i, s, m, o, e, and x in perl (IIRC), which I
> |wouldn't want to see replaced by individual methods, since I (currently)
> |think it is much more natural to regard all of these things as variations
on
> |a common theme.
>
> Hmm, although I think options i, s, m, o, and x should belong to
> regexp, I can understand your opinion.

Could g belong to regexp as well?

If so, then foo.sub(/pat/g, "repl") would be fine with me.

Conrad