|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
It's not easy to understand what your question is, that's why you get fuzzy answers.
> I guess that perl tried to interpret $1[ as element of an array @1?
> So I solved this problem in two ways, using ...
Excellent you even solved it, so what is the question again? :)
Your title $1[ is - sorry - really crap, please see How do I compose an effective node title? for inspiration.
And your question is obscured in between lots of regex line noise, please see How do I post a question effectively?
Now the gory details ...
you said in one of your replies
> which looks to me as a bug.
nope, but IMHO it's ...
... flawed by concept:
Normally an identifier in Perl has to match something like /[_a-zA-Z^][_a-zA-Z0-9]*/ but special variables like $\ or $1 are exceptions (see perlvar#SPECIAL-VARIABLES for a list)
They are global symbols and don't need to be declared.
Unfortunately this covers other possible slots of such a symbol, like %hash, @array, $scalar, &code, *glob and probably also filehandle and format....
For instance %\ doesn't have any meaning, but since $\ is a special variable, it is
I'd rather prefer that undefined special vars fail under strict, alas, we are talking about a language which supported this concept already in Perl4, i.e. long before it introduced lexicals and strict.
Not a bug
Since this /$array[/ is a parsing error and since 1 is not less a symbol than array it's not a bug.
This is normally not a problem, but regex' tend to become messy.
In reply to Re: $1[ (or "Does an array @1 exist in Perl ? - Yes!")