Re^2: Regex with lookahead

Yep, Data::Dumper also works, it's just not as "cool".

Here's an alternate that only allows Flatten, in, or out (but note that multiples are allowed)

#!/usr/bin/perl

# http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=1196747

use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;

while(<DATA>)
  {
  /RepeatingGroup\s*=\s*
    (?<GroupID>\b\w+\b)
    (\s*,\s*
      ((?<Flatten>\bFlatten\b)|(?<Direction>\b(in|out)\b))
    )*
    \s*$/x or next;
  print $_, Dumper \%+;
  }

__DATA__
RepeatingGroup = Waiver, Flatten, out
RepeatingGroup = Waiver, out
RepeatingGroup = Waiver, out, Flatten
RepeatingGroup = Waiver , in
RepeatingGroup = Waiver , Flatten
RepeatingGroup = LEI, out, Flatten
[download]

Comment on Re^2: Regex with lookahead Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Regex with lookahead by stevieb (Canon) on Aug 05, 2017 at 01:29 UTC
cool is in the eye of the beholder, worthy monk: `$ corelist Data::Dumper Data for 2017-01-14 Data::Dumper was first released with perl 5.005 $ corelist Data::Dump Data for 2017-01-14 Data::Dump was not in CORE (or so I think)` [download] To some, "cool" is working without non-core modules, not necessarily what's newer or more fashionable. I'm not saying that Data::Dump is bad, I'm just pointing out that Data::Dumper is available with almost any Perl 5 install.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Regex with lookahead by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Aug 05, 2017 at 17:50 UTC
IIRC Data::Dump RFC:SHOULD be preferred because it is less exploitable security-wise. I did some searching—the similar names and stemming make it difficult—and could not find a source for my belief though, so take it with a grain of salt. I certainly prefer the default output formatting in any case. :P	[reply]
Re^5: Regex with lookahead by stevieb (Canon) on Aug 05, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
Thanks for this explanation, and your security concern trumps my "if I forget a random `use Data::Dumper; print Dumper $x;` in a test file, it'll pass on all Perls even though it's not listed as a prereq". Not saying that happens often, but it most definitely has happened.	[reply] [d/l]