Using split() with a limit is indeed better. But I still feel like elaborating some on your regex, for the heck of it. ;)
In my opinion, your regex is too restrictive. It requires a colon and something after it. This isn't the way split() works. To make it more analogous, I'd make
/([^:]*):?(.*)/s; # Keeping it simple
/([^:]*)(?::(.*))?/; # Making it even more analogous.
(Note also the s modifier that's very easy to forget.)
Of course, it's not perfect. There are issues about the length of the returned list; if the "extra" trailing element (that split() would not even return) should be undef or ''; etc.
The second regex returns '' as second element if there was a colon, undef if there was no colon. This is as close as one gets I believe.
Just for fun:
grep defined, /([^:]*)(?::(.*))?/;
I can't find any differences between this and split(/:/, $_, 2), except for scalar context execution, were you get rid of the old @_ behaviour. | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Ack, the s modifier it was... Forgot it in the last two regexes myself. :)
All regexes should of course have the s modifier.
| [reply] |