P is for Practical | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
At first I thought it might have to do with the bizarre static/dynamic scoping duality of the $1, $2, ... variables, since the postponed (??{CODE}) blocks may be compiled somewhere where they can't reach the correct $1, $2, .... But they also can't seem to access @- and @+, which I don't think have the same scoping properties.
And now I don't know what to think, because of the following example: I add an empty capturing group before the (??{CODE}) block in the outermost match, and it works (or at least seems to): If you were to dump @- and @+ from inside the first example, you'd see that @- has two entries, but @+ has one. It's as if $1 was only partially "set up".. Now I don't know if this "workaround" helps you or not. It could probably allow you to write the parser closer to how you originally envisioned. But it seems like a more fragile workaround than the one you have, and I'm not sure how much I trust it. I think I remember seeing similar weirdness with capturing parens somewhere else, but I can't find the reference at the moment. Then there's the fact that doing this with a regex is silly, when you could write a RecDescent grammar in about 5 seconds.. but I know you know that ;) blokhead In reply to Re: Dynamic regex assertions, capturing groups, and parsers: joy and terror
by blokhead
|
|