in reply to Regex troubles...

Hack using (?{ code }), which is not experimental any more at least as of 5.22(.0+) judging from the docs, and was available at least as of 5.8(.8+), although I don't know how stable it has been in time:
#!/usr/bin/env perl use strict; use warnings; use English qw( -no_match_vars ); use Data::Dumper; my $string = 'foobarbaaaarbaz'; my @second; if (my @matches = $string =~ m{\A (fo*) (?: (?<BAR>\s*ba+r) (?{push @second, $^N}))+ (\s*ba*z) \z}mxs ) { $matches[1] = \@second; print Dumper \@matches; } # $VAR1 = [ # 'foo', # [ # 'bar', # 'baaaar' # ], # 'baz' # ];

Update: as noted below in a comment, the capture BAR is not needed. I added it while playing with %- and %+, and forgot to remove it before posting the example... I'm leaving it though, so that the comment below can still make sense. Anyway, always remember the old adage about regular expressions...

perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf

Io ho capito... ma tu che hai detto?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Regex troubles...
by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Apr 25, 2016 at 07:04 UTC
    (?: (?<BAR>\s*ba+r) (?{push @second, $^N}))+

    What is the advantage of using the  (?<BAR>\s*ba+r) named capture group rather than an ordinary capture group? The name is never referred to anywhere.


    Give a man a fish:  <%-{-{-{-<