On Nov 13, 9:38 am, James Edward Gray II <ja... / grayproductions.net>
wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007, at 8:35 AM, furtive.cl... / gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 9:18 am, James Edward Gray II <ja... / grayproductions.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Just for the sake of the archives, note that the above should use sub
> >> () instead of gsub().
>
> > But that is part of what you are not understanding.  'input' and 're'
> > were originally presented as unknowns.  You can't change gsub to sub,
> > just like you can't take out the block.
>
> I'm uncomfortable with that line of thinking.  When I don't know what
> something contains, I don't default to the most damaging choice.
>

The code was given as is, with unspecified variables 'input' and
're'.  You suggested removing the block.  That is wrong because the
behavior is not equivalent, as I just demonstrated.  You suggested
changing gsub to sub.  That is also wrong because the behavior is not
equivalent (and I assume this needs no demonstration).