Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > How can you be sure that <roundascii> is > implemented as a character class instead of being some other arbitrary > rule? An answer is that perl should know how these things are > implemented and if you try arithmetic on something that's not a > character class, it should carp appropriately. Another answer might be > that <<roundascii>+[17]> is actually syntactically illegal and you MUST > perform character class arithmetic as <[abc]+[def]>. > > Somehow I prefer the former to the latter.
It will definitely be the former, since we have to support named character classes like <alpha>, <digit>, <printable>, etc. Damian
