Re: But is it intuitive?

[Austin Hastings]

Luke Palmer wrote:
Judging from this, maybe we ought to have :not.
Anyway, it's still possible:
   $my_rex = rx/fo*/ & none(rx/^foo$/);
 

For sure. On a side note, there should be a negating match operator for 
use inside:

  rx/\d+/ & none(rx/1984/)
could get awfully long if you had to handle several exceptions.
I like rx:not, though -- a little easier to read IMO.
=Austin