From @masak

<moritz_> should rule { <value> ** \, } and rule { <value> ** [ \, ]
} be the same in terms of <.ws> handling?
<pmichaud> in ultimate effect they're largely the same
<pmichaud> there may be some case where they're not perfectly the same.
<pmichaud> because [ \, ] has some extra <.ws> calls
<moritz_> because in rakudo I see difference in the whitespace handling
<pmichaud> I'm not sure that rakudo/nqp gets the whitespace handling
around ** exactly right.
<pmichaud> PGE had it there, but I don't know that I ever restored it for nqp-rx
<pmichaud> I think nqp-rx still treats { <value> ** \, } exactly
the same as { <value>**\, }
<moritz_> that would explain my observations
<masak> ...which are...? :)
<moritz_> some of my tests fails when I write <value> ** \, but pass
if I write <value> ** [ \, ]
<moritz_> rakudo​: say 'a,b,c' ~~ /​:s <alpha> ** \,/
<p6eval> rakudo 2242ef​: OUTPUT«a,b,c␤»
<moritz_> rakudo​: say 'a, b, c' ~~ /​:s <alpha> ** \,/
<p6eval> rakudo 2242ef​: OUTPUT«a␤»
<masak> can I submit that to RT?
<moritz_> yes, please
* masak submits rakudobug

From @masak

<dalek> rakudo​: 8b116ff | moritz++ | build/PARROT_REVISION​:
<dalek> rakudo​: bump PARROT_REVISION to get latest nqp-rx fixes for ** quantifier and
:sigspace
<dalek> rakudo​: review​: http://github.com/rakudo/rakud[…]db725fcc3c258aa9a
<moritz_> phenny​: tell masak that his bug report for :sigpace + ** quantifier never made it to
RT, but it's fixed in 8b116ff in
<phenny> moritz_​: I'll pass that on when masak is around.

Resolving ticket.

@masak - Status changed from 'new' to 'resolved'