Re^5: Using Regexp::Common

The following program will match every base-10 number in your string. The number may be in any format known to perl.

use strict;
use warnings;
use Regexp::Common;
$_ =  '10,101,110.11010110 ';


local $, = "\n";
print /($RE{num}{real})/g;
[download]

OUTPUT:

10
101
110.11010110
[download]

Note that the group and sep options are not specified. They only apply to separations within a single number. The absence of a keep option tells the module not to capture anything. We use our own parenthesis to capture exactly what we want. We use the /g match option to find (and capture) all the matches.

Bill

Comment on Re^5: Using Regexp::Common Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Using Regexp::Common by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Sep 20, 2015 at 21:05 UTC
We use our own parenthesis ... With use of the `/g` regex modifier, capturing parentheses are not needed (although they do no harm): in list context, all matched sub-strings are returned. `c:\@Work\Perl>perl -wMstrict -MRegexp::Common -le "$_ = '10,101,110.11010110'; ;; print qq{'$_'} for /$RE{num}{real}/g; " '10' '101' '110.11010110'` [download] The absence of a keep option tells the module not to capture anything. But I thought that the idea behind the use of `-keep` was that justrajdeep wanted to "... divide [the extracted numbers] into floats/integer etc.", i.e., classify them, and for this the capture of number components (sign, whole number, fractional part, etc.) by `-keep` could be made to work nicely. ... group and sep options are not specified. They only apply to separations within a single number. justrajdeep seems to want to handle comma-separated, grouped whole numbers (and binary ones at that), but I agree that his or her requirements are a bit confusing, at least to me. Give a man a fish: `<%-{-{-{-<`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: Using Regexp::Common by BillKSmith (Monsignor) on Sep 20, 2015 at 22:36 UTC
My intention was to help justrajdeep clarify his requirements by providing a base line solution to critique. Your use of 'for' neatly solves the problem I had with keep. I was not aware that my parenthesis were not needed. I probably still would have specified them. Bill	[reply]