Yes, indeed.

However, just like exposing only the string value of the named captures (as Perl 5.010 does) is convenient (for the user) but doesn't allow for the full abstraction of the feature (leaving no way to reliably find the offsets), so too would exposing the offsets not be the full abstaction and would still leave off a useful feature.

I'd like a way to (reliably) get at the number of the (numbered) capture that matches the named capture. That would allow one to then get at the offsets for any named capture which would then allow one to get at the substring matched.

I may end up parsing the regex myself, since I also would like to know when a capture is part of a look-ahead or look-behind. But the regex syntax has had so many enhancements added recently that parsing regexes currently looks like something that will require timely maintenance.