It would probably be better to link to the article itself. Anyway, I get the idea that (?~abc) would be analogous to [^x], except that the former is for multi-character sequences. I assume that similar effects can be achieved in Perl with Lookaround Assertions. What I'm missing at the moment are some more examples of practical applications - the only one mentioned in the article and the Ruby docs is not matching invalid C comments (second final example below).
An excerpt from the Ruby docs:
(?~subexp) absent operator (experimental)
Matches any string which doesn't contain any string which matches subexp. Similar to (?:(?!subexp).)*, but easy to write.
Unlike (?:(?!abc).)*c, (?~abc)c matches "abc", because (?~abc) matches "ab".
A sandbox for finding equivalent expressions:
use warnings;
use strict;
use Test::More;
# in Ruby: (?~abc)
my $re1 = qr{ \A (?: (?!abc) . )* \z }x;
like '', $re1;
like 'ab', $re1;
like 'aab', $re1;
like 'ccdd', $re1;
unlike 'abc', $re1;
unlike 'aabc', $re1;
unlike 'ccccabc', $re1;
unlike 'ccabcdd', $re1;
# in Ruby: (?~abc)c
# this example fails in Perl
like 'abc', qr{ \A (?: (?!abc) . )* c \z }x;
# in Ruby: \A\/\*(?~\*\/)\*\/\z
my $re2 = qr{ \A /\* ( (?!\*/). )*? \*/ \z }x;
like '/**/', $re2;
like '/* foobar */', $re2;
unlike '/**/ */', $re2;
done_testing;