Re: RFC 166 (v1) Additions to regexs

> > (The \ is necessary here because (?@foo) already has a meaning under
> > Perl 5, and I think your proposal must address this.)
> 
> (?@foo) has no meaning I checked the code

I don't know what you mean, but you're mistaken, because it means to
interpolate @foo as in a double-quoted string.