On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 17:48 +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > 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...
I've run across many people who have been quite confused by the fact that Perl 5's $n submatch holders aren't 0-indexed, so I don't think this would be a bad change at all. Certainly it should go high in the "what changed" list as a warning, but that's not a big deal.
