Re: parsing behavior of a subrule without/with a repetition specifier

Terrence suggested:

   > I guess what Akio is saying (or what I get from what he is saying) is 
   > that, in pure Perl, a repetition count of 1 returns the same data 
   > structure as leaving off the repetition operator. However, P::RD is 
   > different and hence surprising/non-intuitive in this respect.

I don't think C<x> is the right analogy for RecDescent repetition operators.
The behaviour of C<*> and C<+> in regexes is a closer model.

I guess it depends on your poitn of view. I would have said that the
absolute consistency with which *every* repetition (regardless of its
number) returns an array ref is better than the alternative:

        christmas:
                gold_rings(5)                   # returns array ref
                calling_birds(4)                # returns array ref
                French_hens(3)                  # returns array ref
                turtle_doves(2)                 # returns array ref
                partridge_in_a_pear_tree(1)     # returns scalar value

Especially if you have to change the count at some later point, which 
would mess up any code relying on the type of value returned.

Damian