in reply to Re: no way it's not a bug of Perl
in thread I thought I found a bug of Perl

unexpected quantum influence

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: no way it's not a bug of Perl
by NERDVANA (Priest) on Jul 14, 2024 at 10:57 UTC
    Perhaps, but what did you expect it to do? A no-op?

    You'll find a lot of places in Perl where they decided that a code expression that doesn't do anything useful should get a special case so that it does something useful.

      > A no-op?

      Please note that in mathematics an empty set is always a sub set of all other sets.

      And so does the empty pattern in Perl always match.

      If no match has previously succeeded, this will (silently) act instead as a genuine empty pattern (which will always match).

      Hence not a no-op!°

      > that a code expression that doesn't do anything useful should get a special case so that it does something useful.

      I disagree. The "repeat the last match" feature should be dependent on an explicit modifier like eg s///b ²

      I'd welcome a feature to switch off the current default behavior in favor of an explicit modifier.

      Reasoning: The ratio of useful vs confusing is too bad.

      Update

      °) Demo:

      ~ $ perl -de0 ... DB<1> $_='XXXX' DB<2> s/(?:)/Y/ # genuine empty pattern DB<3> p YXXXX DB<3> s/(?:)/Z/g DB<4> p ZYZXZXZXZXZ DB<4>

      ²) in an earlier version I suggested s///l but this modifier is already taken. "b" (for before) seems to be free.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      see Wikisyntax for the Monastery

        100% agree. At $job - 2, we spent several days tracking a bug caused by s/$regex/$replace/ where $regex got accidentally empty and the substitution started replacing unrelated parts of the data.

        Besides /b or a feature, another way would be to introduce a new construct, e.g. (*LAST), which you can use similarly to (*SKIP) etc.

        map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]
        OP's example of s/// would look like a no-op because the replacement is also empty.

        Other than that, I agree.

      I expected it just do nothing, But it's more useful to take last matched pattern.

        s/(?:)// will do nothing (or rather, replace one-zero length string with another zero-length string). So, if you have a possibly-empty pattern in a variable, you could use

        s/(?:$pat)//

        or

        my $re = qr/$pat/; s/$re//

        The latter was buggy before 5.18 as it resulted in the same as s/// when $pat contained an empty string.