Aaron Sherman wrote: > Is C<\n> going to be a rule (e.g. C<< <eol> >>)
There might be an named rule like that. But C<\n> will certainly still be available. > or is it implicitly translated to: > > <[\x0a\x0d...]>+ No. It will be equivalent to: <[\x0a\x0d...]> (no repetition) > Along those lines, will > > <[\n]> > > work Yes. > Hmm... this is a slippery slope. That gets me thinking about > > rule roundascii { <[a-hjm-uB-DGJO-SU23568-0]> } > $roundor7 = rx /<[<roundascii>17]>/; > > or do I have to > > $roundor7 = rx /<roundorascii>|<[17]>/; Neither. You need: $roundor7 = rx /<<roundascii>+[17]>/ That is: the union of the two character classes. Damian