Re: Irregular expression evaluation

I remember reading something in Mastering Regular Expressions warning against mixing lexicals with (?{}) (though I may be mistaken). Note that this appears to work:

use warnings;
use strict;

gf ();
gf ();

sub gf
{
    my $ins1 = '4 A -4 C -4 B 1 D';
    our @inserts = ();
    $ins1 =~ /[\d+-]+(?: \w ([\d+-]+)(?{push @inserts, $1}))*/g;
    print "\n" . join ' ', @inserts;
}
[download]

Comment on Re: Irregular expression evaluation Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Irregular expression evaluation by pg (Canon) on Oct 24, 2005 at 03:46 UTC
You are right. The binding was resolved at compiling time. There was a deep binding of @inserts inside that anonymous subroutine. That binding lasts beyond the scope of @inserts.	[reply]
Re^2: Irregular expression evaluation by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Oct 24, 2005 at 20:31 UTC
Note that you can also work around it by declaring a lexical outside the scope of the sub: `{ my @inserts; sub gf { @inserts = (); my $ins1 = '4 A -4 C -4 B 1 D'; print "\nat the beginning: " . \@inserts . "\n"; print $ins1, "\n"; my $re = qr/[\d+-]+(?: \w ([\d+-]+)(?{print \@inserts, "\n"; p +ush @inserts, $1}))/; $ins1 =~ /$re/g; print "\n" . join ' ', @inserts; } }` [download] You might notice that I created a regex variable. I had hoped that that would cause the regex to be bound at runtime, but no such luck. Creating an empty variable and inserting it in the regex does force runtime evaluation (at least inasmuch as it demands use of `use re 'eval'`), but it still* doesn't make the `(?{})` section use the current incarnation of `@inserts`. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply] [d/l] [select]