On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:52:54AM +0000, Matthew Walton wrote: > Of course, it then begs the question about > > <word ws $foo ws number> > > if we're thinking of parallels with qw//-like constructs, which I > certainly am. I'm not quite sure what that would do, as it collides > slightly with the existing rule match syntax (which I quite like), and > thus it may already have a meaning.
This already has a meaning, it calls the "word" assertion with the (rule) expression /ws $foo ws number/ as an argument. At least it's that way unless/until Larry changes (changed?) it. Pm
