> > But it does raise an important point: the discrepancy between $42 and $/[41]
> > *is* a great opportunity for off-by-on errors. Previously, however, @Larry
> > have tossed back and forth the possibility of using $0 as the first capture
> > variable so that the indices of $/[0], $/[1], $/[2] match up with the 
> > "names"
> > of $0, $1, $2, etc.
> >
> > I think this error--unintentional, I swear!--argues strongly that internal
> > consistency within Perl 6 is more important than historical consistency with
> > Perl 5's $1, $2, $3...

FWIW, I think that all the /^\$\d+$/ variables should be related to
each other, too.

Now - here's a question. Can I always address $42 in same way that I
could address $2 in P5 at any time? Or, will they only come into scope
whenever there was a match higher up? I personally like them only
being in scope within the scope of a match, especially under any

Second - is it possible or desirable for @/ to be assignable? I can
think of some nice uses for that, primarily in testing ...


Reply via email to