On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 09:55, Markus Laire wrote: > On 4 Sep 2002 at 0:22, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > > On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 00:01, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > > > > None, I think. Of course, if we ignore internals, there's no > > > difference bewteen that and "rx /<roundascii> | 1 | 7/". > > > > Then, why is there a C<+>? Why not make it C<|>? > > > > $foo = rx/ <<a>|<b>|[cde]>|f / > > Because it's good to have MTOWTDI. (= More than one way to do it)
But, there isn't. There's only one way to indicate character-class unions, and that's C<+>. If we had C<+> and C<|> as synonyms, I'd be ok with that, though I'd only tell people about C<|> to avoid the confusion (mind if we call you Bruce?)
