Nowadays I'd only use $1 etc. if they are used within something like 5-10 lines of the regex. Even then I often find myself writing my ($foo,$bar) = $str =~ /^(\w+)\s+(.+)/; instead of using $1 and friends. I think the only time I've used $1 recently is in a construct like if (/^\w+\s+(.+)/) { my $foo = $1; .... In your example case, I would almost certainly use named capture groups, since it looks like the regexes are defined nowhere near the $1 variables; I'd say there's too much of a risk of someone accidentally adding a capture group somewhere and throwing off all of the indicies of the other groups. Named capture groups can also help someone trying to understand a regex later on. So in general, I find having things named, especially stored in lexical variables (i.e. watched by strict), is always preferable from a maintenance standpoint. I usually only back down from that when the scripts are really compact and/or it's a throwaway script. As for performance, you know what they say about optimization ;-)
In reply to Re: Named captures or positional variables
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Named captures or positional variables
by MidLifeXis
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |