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