I was curious about whether the anchoring really reduced the work, so I ran a benchmark of the various suggested methods. I found some of the results surprising -- like the fact that xeger was not a lot slower than the anchored match. And anchoring the 2-step solution slowed it down.
@strings = ( 'There was a bright man from Nantucket'
,'Abba babbles about bubble blowers'
,'Enough with the excess bs already'
,'None at all in this one');
my @c;
use Benchmark 'cmpthese';
%methods = (
'anch' => sub { s/b(?=[^b]*$)/x/ for @c=@strings},
'xeger' => sub { $_ = reverse, s/b/x/, $_ = reverse for @c=@strings
+},
'plain' => sub { s/(.*)b/$1x/ for @c=@strings},
'2part' => sub { /.*(?=b)/g and s/\Gb/x/ for @c=@strings },
'2part-A' => sub { /b(?=[^b]*$)/g and s/\Gb/x/ for @c=@strings },
'substr' => sub { substr($_, rindex($_, 'b'), 1) = 'x' for @c=@strin
+gs},
'neglook' => sub { s/b(?!.*b)/x/ for @c=@strings }
);
cmpthese(-3, \%methods );
Results:
Rate plain 2part-A 2part neglook xeger anch substr
plain 3208/s -- -31% -35% -44% -47% -51% -64%
2part-A 4630/s 44% -- -6% -20% -23% -29% -48%
2part 4948/s 54% 7% -- -14% -18% -24% -45%
neglook 5767/s 80% 25% 17% -- -4% -12% -36%
xeger 6029/s 88% 30% 22% 5% -- -8% -33%
anch 6536/s 104% 41% 32% 13% 8% -- -27%
substr 8985/s 180% 94% 82% 56% 49% 37% --
Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.
|