I also usually use "regarding". It's shorter and leaves no room for doubt. "As to" is also a better option imo, unless you really want to sound pompous or something.

I would dig a little deeper into that, once English is the liveliest language in the world, therefore, its grammar and vocabulary is in constant change and updating. I take it from my own personal experience as a native speaker of Portuguese where what we say very often differs from what there is in our Portuguese grammar.
The grammar of a certain people often changes through oral use by its speakers over time and often starts to change based on a mistake. Thus, what starts as a mistake, is very likely to become grammatically accepted if used by many people over a long period of time.
For now, I would stick to the countable and uncountable notions when writing but when speaking I'd probably go with Warsaw and say something like: "Five eggs! That's far too many/much for one person!"
After all, we must never forget that Oral and Written communication are quite different.

I had never heard it being used like that.. but i can think of an example where it kind of fits:

Why were both our answers different from the answer sheet's?
Same difference: we both used the wrong pronouns.

I like Hairy's answer! It's more like what I tried to do here..

I know "only" is being used as an adjective here, I'm sorry.. but its instinctual.

I would go with "There can be only one" since it is usually true that adverbs usually go AFTER the verb TO BE as in "There IS only one choice", unlike "She only STUDIES in the evening"

Let me give you all a perspective from an EFL teacher in Rio, Brazil, where PORTUGUESE (NOT Spanish) is spoken.
Students of English in Brazil, students who learn English as a second language, who most of the time learn oral and written English (grammar) separately (because they make more sense this way), would never make such a mistake. Foreign students of English are not naturally familiar with the English Phonetic system, therefore, the FULL form "WOULD HAVE" is always seen before the contracted form "WOULD'VE", leaving no room for misunderstanding of its spelling or, for that matter, oral pronunciation.