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


Reply via email to