Re: Chomping most of a _long

index works just fine here, no need to use regex.

use strict;
use warnings;

my $u = 70; # Number of underscores
my $t = join '',<DATA>;
substr($t,0,index($t,"\n".'_'x$u."\n")+$u+2) = '';
print $t;

__DATA__
Junk data
goes here
______________________________________________________________________
Useful data
goes here
[download]

Comment on Re: Chomping most of a _long_ text string Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Chomping most of a _long_ text string by ihb (Deacon) on May 29, 2005 at 18:37 UTC
I pondered whether I prefered `index()` or `$+[0]` and I concluded `$+[0]`. The `index()` expression becomes so cluttered, and it has a problem if the substring isn't found. Then you'll destroy the beginning of the string anyway, and remove `$u`-1 chars from the beginning. I figured that most likely, if the marker isn't there, it's already removed. If not you still need to perform some check, and for me the regex version is nicer. I'd like to flip the coin and say "matching works find here, no need to use `index()`", but if one likes `index()` one should use `index()`. :-) `ihb` See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Chomping most of a _long_ text string
by ihb (Deacon) on May 29, 2005 at 18:37 UTC

I pondered whether I prefered index() or $+[0] and I concluded $+[0]. The index() expression becomes so cluttered, and it has a problem if the substring isn't found. Then you'll destroy the beginning of the string anyway, and remove $u-1 chars from the beginning. I figured that most likely, if the marker isn't there, it's already removed. If not you still need to perform some check, and for me the regex version is nicer.

I'd like to flip the coin and say "matching works find here, no need to use index()", but if one likes index() one should use index(). :-)

ihb

See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]