Re^2: Bug in ' perldoc perlvar ' ?

Yes, that cleared it up. Thanks for that.

Ok, though I understand that now, I think, that "similar to @+" should be rephrased to be more concrete what is meant (or may it even be left out? Is it really necessary?).

added:

If I read perlvar from the beginning to end, as we can see, I don't recognize this "similarity" of @+ and %+. @- is explained a few paragraphes later in the document, so hasn't been read yet. I don't think, it's clear enough (in the doc).

Comment on Re^2: Bug in ' perldoc perlvar ' ? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Bug in ' perldoc perlvar ' ? by Fletch (Bishop) on Feb 02, 2010 at 19:49 UTC
I understand what it's saying, but I also can understand why it's not readily apparent (especially to a non-native speaker) because I'm having a hard time coming up with a clearer phrasing for it myself :). Maybe "Analogous to `@+` for accessing captures via numeric indexes, `%+` allows accessing named captures via the name"? If you want to access captures by their index, use `@+` and `@-`; if you want to access (named) captures by name, use `%+`. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Bug in ' perldoc perlvar ' ?
by Fletch (Bishop) on Feb 02, 2010 at 19:49 UTC

I understand what it's saying, but I also can understand why it's not readily apparent (especially to a non-native speaker) because I'm having a hard time coming up with a clearer phrasing for it myself :). Maybe "Analogous to @+ for accessing captures via numeric indexes, %+ allows accessing named captures via the name"? If you want to access captures by their index, use @+ and @-; if you want to access (named) captures by name, use %+.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]