(?>...) still works like expected (and its better readable IMHO)
Seems like someone thought there should be a (erroneous) warning and patched the code.
The perldoc mentioning redundancy might have paved the way for accepting this patch too easily.
I'm surprised there was no unit test that alarmed p5p.
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Je suis Charlie!
In reply to Re^8: about style: use possessive or atomic?
by LanX
in thread about style: use possessive or atomic?
by rsFalse
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |