If you use a named capture, then you can use that capture for a subsequent match, perhaps a new regex. ... using a named capture this way in a new regex ...

Could you give an example of what you mean? AFAIU, the  %+ hash is re-initialized when a new regex match is entered.

c:\@Work\Perl\monks>perl -wMstrict -le
"my $s = 'one two three four';
 ;;
 $s =~ m{
   \A
   (?<save>  \w+) \s+
   (?<this>  \w+) \s+
   (?<for>   \w+) \s+
   (?<later> \w+) \s*
   \z
   }xms;
 print join '-', @+{ qw(save this for later) };
 ;;
 $s = 'fee fie foe fum';
 ;;
 $s =~ m{
   (?{ print join '==', @+{ qw(save this for later) } })
   \A
   (?<save>  \w+) \s+
   (?<this>  \w+) \s+
   (?<for>   \w+) \s+
   (?<later> \w+) \s*
   \z
   }xms;
 print join '+++', @+{ qw(save this for later) };
"
one-two-three-four
Use of uninitialized value in join or string at (re_eval 1) line 1.
Use of uninitialized value in join or string at (re_eval 1) line 1.
Use of uninitialized value in join or string at (re_eval 1) line 1.
Use of uninitialized value in join or string at (re_eval 1) line 1.
======
fee+++fie+++foe+++fum
[download]

Yes, I guess you're most probably right that %+ hash is probably lost when you enter a new regex. Although my initial point was really about using the named capture within the same regex.

Besides the fact that I wrote my previous post on a mobile device while commuting to work, with no chance to test, I guess I got carried away by the fact that I am working much more on Perl 6 than on Perl 5 these days when it comes to these matters.

Having said that, I still believe that named captures can bring you something (limited) in that direction. But too late now, I'll try to come up with something tomorrow.