$MessageLines[-1] =~ m/^.*\S/sg;
my $CursorCol = pos $MessageLines[-1];
[download]

I would have used '-1' as the subscript. Would have. As of about 5 minutes ago I changed my mind as to the appropriateness of using -1 as a subscript.

Consider the following blocks...

$[ = -4;
@a = (qw(a b c d e f g h i j));
print $a[-1], "\n";
print $a[$#a], "\n";
__DATA__
d
j
[download]

and

$[ = 0;
@a = (qw(a b c d e f g h i j));
print $a[-1], "\n";
print $a[$#a], "\n";
__DATA__
j
j
[download]

There is some DWIMmery with the -1 option that could cause problems, especially if you are working on old, or someone else's code of unknown usage or localization of the $[ variable. And yes, I have read the disclaimers not to use the $[ variable in the fine manual. I didn't say that I would use the variable. :-)

Update: This is perl, v5.8.8 built for PA-RISC2.0

Comparison

Update #2: Comparison of perl binary available on this machine:

for x in 100 1 0 -1 -6 -7 -11 -12 -99; do
    perl -le "\$[=$x; my @ra=qw(a b c d e f); print \$[, ': -1:' , \$r
+a[-1], ': $#: ', \$ra[\$#ra]"
done
[download]

• This is perl, version 5.005_02 built for PA-RISC1.1

  100: -1: f: $#: f
  1: -1: f: $#: f
  0: -1: f: $#: f
  -1: -1: f: $#: f
  -6: -1: f: $#: f
  -7: -1: f: $#: e
  -11: -1: f: $#: a
  -12: -1: f: $#: 
  -99: -1: f: $#:
  [download]

This is perl, v5.8.8 built for PA-RISC2.0

100: -1: f: $#: f
1: -1: f: $#: f
0: -1: f: $#: f
-1: -1: a: $#: f
-6: -1: f: $#: f
-7: -1: : $#: e
-11: -1: : $#: a
-12: -1: : $#: 
-99: -1: : $#:
[download]

Conclusion: Don't use $[ as anything other than 0 (as presented by a couple of other monks so far.

Interesting. Running the same test on my ActiveState Win32 Perl 5.8.2 build 808, I get results indicating that -1 more reliably accesses the last element of an array.

The following one-liner was run repeatedly with  $[ initialized to different values:

>perl -wMstrict -le
"$[ = 100;  my @ra = qw(a b c d e f);
 print '$[: ', $[, '  -1: ', $ra[-1], '  $#: ', $ra[$#ra];"
$[: 100  -1: f  $#: f
[download]

Output of successive runs of the one-liner:

$[: 100  -1: f  $#: f
$[: 1  -1: f  $#: f
$[: 0  -1: f  $#: f
$[: -1  -1: f  $#: f
$[: -6  -1: f  $#: f
$[: -7  -1: f  $#: e
$[: -11  -1: f  $#: a
Use of uninitialized value in print at -e line 1.
$[: -12  -1: f  $#:
Use of uninitialized value in print at -e line 1.
$[: -99  -1: f  $#:
[download]

Perhaps more support for the don't do that part of the discussion in the docs about assigning to  $[ a value other than 0?

(BTW, the latest perlvar sez wrt  $[ that As of release 5 of Perl, assignment to $[ is treated as a compiler directive, and cannot influence the behavior of any other file, so old code that plays too fast and loose with  $[ may be broken anyway.)

I think  $[ was originally intended to allow use of either 0-based or 1-based arrays, and then things kinda got out of hand. Sanity is slowly being restored.

See the Numerical Recipes series, IIRC. I seem to also remember that there was a 1-based vs 0-based set of changes going around, or perhaps it was in Numerical Recipes in Pascal.

The general case of assigning any value to $[ opens up many interesting problems :-)

--MidLifeXis

The tomes, scrolls etc are dusty because they reside in a dusty old house, not because they're unused. --hangon in this post