Update: While the (?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 }))+ approach discussed in this reply can certainly work, I think I would prefer the two-step approach outlined in choroba's reply above for its greater readability and maintainability.
If I take the for-loop out of the equation, I get something closer to what I expect (still Strawberry 5.14.4.1):
c:\@Work\Perl\monks>perl -wMstrict -le
"my $string = 'ab1b2b3b4d';
my @two;
my @matches = $string =~ /(a)
(b.(?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'ab5b6b7d';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(b.(?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'ab8b9d';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(b.(?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'abxd';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(b.(?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'ad';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(b.(?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
"
'ab1b2b3b4d' -> all:(a b4 d) -> 2:(b1 b2 b3)
'ab5b6b7d' -> all:(a b7 d) -> 2:(b5 b6)
'ab8b9d' -> all:(a b9 d) -> 2:(b8)
'abxd' -> all:(a bx d) -> 2:()
'ad' -> all:() -> 2:()
And if I re-arrange the capturing, I get exactly what I expect:
c:\@Work\Perl\monks>perl -wMstrict -le
"my $string = 'ab1b2b3b4d';
my @two;
my @matches = $string =~ /(a)
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 })
+)+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'ab5b6b7d';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'ab8b9d';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'abxd';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
;;
$string = 'ad';
@two = ();
@matches = $string =~ /(a)
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
(d)/x;
print qq{'$string' -> all:(@matches) -> 2:(@two)};
"
'ab1b2b3b4d' -> all:(a b4 d) -> 2:(b1 b2 b3 b4)
'ab5b6b7d' -> all:(a b7 d) -> 2:(b5 b6 b7)
'ab8b9d' -> all:(a b9 d) -> 2:(b8 b9)
'abxd' -> all:(a bx d) -> 2:(bx)
'ad' -> all:() -> 2:()
Update: The expression
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 if defined $2 }))+
works just as well without the statement modifier:
(?: (b.) (?{ push @two, $2 }))+
I don't understand the use of the statement modifier: Could $2 ever be undefined in this situation?
Give a man a fish: <%-{-{-{-<
|