On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:05:55PM -0600, Paul Seamons wrote: > I'd vote for <:ws> which is vaguely reminiscent of the former non-capturing > parens (?:). > > It (<:ws>) also bears little similarity to any other regex construct - > although it looks a bit like a Perl 6 pair.
For completeness it may be worth pointing out that :i, :s, and :Perl5 are in fact valid regex constructs. :-) Pm
