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
