in reply to Re: substituting capture groups substrings (?...)
in thread substituting capture groups substrings

Hi tye,

Can you please explain why you would use
s/(?<=[0-9]{2})(?=[0-9]{2})/ /g
over
s/([0-9]{2})([0-9]{2})/$1 $2/g

I know that juxtaposing a look-behind and a look-ahead effectively matches a zero-width point between characters, for which you can then subsitute, as you did with a space. But is there a reason other than coolness to use that construct rather than the more familiar "match/capture/use captures in replacement" construct? Do you do so to avoid the overhead of populating and reading the capture variables?

The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: substituting capture groups substrings (?...)
by Athanasius (Archbishop) on Jul 14, 2015 at 15:22 UTC
Re^3: substituting capture groups substrings (?...)
by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jul 14, 2015 at 18:00 UTC

    I would be tempted to go even a little further down the look-around path and specify that the four-digit groups be exactly four digits, i.e., that they be delimited by non-digits.

    c:\@Work\Perl>perl -wMstrict -le "my $s = '37 35 55555 37 8 17 16 25 36 37 3840 42 42 42 40'; print qq{'$s'}; ;; $s =~ s{ (?<= (?<! \d) [0-9]{2}) (?= [0-9]{2} (?! \d)) }{ }xmsg; print qq{'$s'}; " '37 35 55555 37 8 17 16 25 36 37 3840 42 42 42 40' '37 35 55555 37 8 17 16 25 36 37 38 40 42 42 42 40'

    The OPed example data contain an instance of a single-digit data point: '37 8 17'. If I saw such a two-one-two pattern in the output, how would I know (other than by going back and examining the original data) that it was not a regex fix-up artifact?

    c:\@Work\Perl>perl -wMstrict -le "my $s = '37 35 55555 37 8 17 16 25 36 37 3840 42 42 42 40'; print qq{'$s'}; ;; $s =~ s{ (?<= [0-9]{2}) (?= [0-9]{2}) }{ }xmsg; print qq{'$s'}; " '37 35 55555 37 8 17 16 25 36 37 3840 42 42 42 40' '37 35 55 5 55 37 8 17 16 25 36 37 38 40 42 42 42 40'
    Of course, there aren't any five-digit groups in the original data, right? Famous Last Words. This is, at least potentially, an illustration of the classic regex lament "I had a problem and I thought, 'I know, I'll solve it with a regex!' Now I have two problems." Much as I love regexes, I have to admit they can turn nasty on ya pretty quickly. Best to be precise.

    Update: Come to think of it, if single-digit data values are valid, who's to say that the proper representation of '3840' is not '3 84 0'? More information is needed to make a useful decision here.


    Give a man a fish:  <%-(-(-(-<