in reply to [OT] Thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator?

It would probably be better to link to the article itself. Anyway, I get the idea that (?~abc) would be analogous to [^x], except that the former is for multi-character sequences. I assume that similar effects can be achieved in Perl with Lookaround Assertions. What I'm missing at the moment are some more examples of practical applications - the only one mentioned in the article and the Ruby docs is not matching invalid C comments (second final example below).

An excerpt from the Ruby docs:

(?~subexp) absent operator (experimental)

Matches any string which doesn't contain any string which matches subexp. Similar to (?:(?!subexp).)*, but easy to write.

Unlike (?:(?!abc).)*c, (?~abc)c matches "abc", because (?~abc) matches "ab".

A sandbox for finding equivalent expressions:

use warnings;
use strict;
use Test::More;

# in Ruby: (?~abc)
my $re1 = qr{ \A (?: (?!abc) . )* \z }x;
like '', $re1;
like 'ab', $re1;
like 'aab', $re1;
like 'ccdd', $re1;
unlike 'abc', $re1;
unlike 'aabc', $re1;
unlike 'ccccabc', $re1;
unlike 'ccabcdd', $re1;

# in Ruby: (?~abc)c
# this example fails in Perl
like 'abc', qr{ \A (?: (?!abc) . )* c \z }x;

# in Ruby: \A\/\*(?~\*\/)\*\/\z
my $re2 = qr{ \A /\* ( (?!\*/). )*? \*/ \z }x;
like '/**/', $re2;
like '/* foobar */', $re2;
unlike '/**/ */', $re2;

done_testing;

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: [OT] Thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator?
by LanX (Saint) on Mar 24, 2017 at 16:59 UTC
    > Anyway, I get the idea that (?~abc) would be analogous to ^x, except that the former is for multi-character sequences.

    Thanks, now I get the idea and I have to admit that I missed this feature in the past, though I can't recall when exactly.

    But all useful use-cases which come to my mind involve strict boundaries, like parsing a grammar and explicitely excluding certain commands.

    Like parsing a html but not wanting "a" and "img"-tags while allowing "anchor"

    This would mean to use something like

     /<\s*\b(?~a|img)\b(.*)>/

    and this should be achievable with

    use strict;
use warnings;


undef $/;
$_ = <DATA>;                            # slurp




print "1: $1 - $2\n" while /<\s*(?!a\b|img\b)(\w+)\b(.*?)\s*>/g;

print "2: $1 - $2\n" while /<\s*(?!a|img)(\w+)(.*?)\s*>/g;

my %absent =
  (
   a=>1,
   img =>1
  );


while (/<\s*(\w+)(.*?)\s*>/g) {
   print "3: $1 - $2\n" unless $absent{$1};
}

while (/<\s*(\w+)\b(??{ $absent{$1} ? '^' : '' })(.*?)\s*>/g) {
   print "4: $1 - $2\n";
}




__DATA__
<a href='bla'>
<img href='bla'>
<table style="">
<anchor >
<tr width=100>

    [download]

    1: table -  style=""
1: anchor - 
1: tr -  width=100
2: table -  style=""
2: tr -  width=100
3: table -  style=""
3: anchor - 
3: tr -  width=100
4: table -  style=""
4: anchor - 
4: tr -  width=100

    [download]

    please note how important it is to repeat the delimiting \b in case 1, which might justify the use of (?~...) .

    Though to be sure I'd need to test the Ruby implementation, and I'm not willing to install yet.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

    PS: Choosing HTML as data grammar was - as always - unfortunate. You are free to propose something different.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
Re^2: [OT] Thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 24, 2017 at 15:19 UTC
    The C-style comments pattern isn't really a practical example. They can be matched more easily as qr{/\*.*?\*/}, but the problem is stated in an unnatural way to exclude that.
[reply]
[d/l]
      But non-greedy matching is known to be slow. Maybe I'll need to make some benchmarks.
[reply]

In Section Meditations