Sorry, I can't help but read the subject as an abbreviation of
post Hugo, ergo propter Hugo
and then I wonder why you're naming an RFC after a logical fallacy
involving a perl5-porter. I am seeking treatment, though :-)
Nat
This RFC had three concepts, I propose dropping the "Not a pattern" from here
as it is now in RFC 198 and the null element. The List expansion might
benefit from a slight enhancement.
Hugo:
> (?@foo) and (?Q@foo) are both things I've wanted before now. I'm
> not sure if this is the right syntax,
