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.


Anyway, while we could have
a method for the .matchcount, +$1[] should work fine too.


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, of course, outside the rule, C<%1> is a shortcut for C<%{$1}>:


Reply via email to