Re^2: Bug in ' perldoc perlvar ' ?

[linuxer]

in reply to Re: Bug in ' perldoc perlvar ' ?
in thread 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).

[Fletch]

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 %+.