Larry Wall wrote:
I think we already said something like that once some number of months ago. +$1 simply has to be the numeric value of the match.
Agreed.
Anyway, while we could have
a method for the .matchcount, +$1[] should work fine too.
Yep.
Actually, it's not clear to me offhand why @1 shouldn't mean $1[]
and %1 shouldn't mean $1{}.
It *does*. According to the recent capture semantics document:
> Note that, outside a rule, C<@1> is simply a shorthand for C<@{$1}>,and:
> And, of course, outside the rule, C<%1> is a shortcut for C<%{$1}>:Damian
