Re^2: Negative Lookahead Assertion Problem

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Negative Lookahead Assertion Problem by monarch (Priest) on Jul 19, 2005 at 11:39 UTC
I'm confused by your post. Breaking down `qr/Foo::Bar(?!\s+\()/` we get: `Foo::Bar # literal 'Foo::Bar' (?! # start of negative look-ahead \s+ # one or more white space chars \( # literal opening bracket ) # end of negative look-ahead` [download] so to answer your reply, I believe I provided the literal ( after the \s*. To answer your other statement, that something such as "Foo::Bar is my favourite module" should match, I agree - that is how I read the initial requirement from the thread. In which case my answer of using `\s+` kept within the spirit of the original statements made by the thread author. However I wanted to keep my example in line with the example that the author had tried, hence the use of the literal (. Hope this clears up my answer.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Negative Lookahead Assertion Problem by ysth (Canon) on Jul 19, 2005 at 20:12 UTC
My point was that only something like "Foo::Bar is my favorite module" should match, not "Foo::Bar()" and " Foo::Bar()" (which changing * to + make match). As to "missing )", I meant (but put it poorly) in your statement: Surely trying to match \s is futile in a negative-lookup? Because \s* can match nothing it will always succeed, thereby never matching??* The assertion wasn't `\s`, it was `\s\(`, a horse of a completely different color.	[reply] [d/l] [select]