Re: Looking for N/A twice

You don't need to explicitly use $_ in a pattern match, and you can use a single regexp (together with FunkyMonk's advice):

if (m{ \bsata\b .*? \bN/A\b .*? \bN/A\b }ix) { ... }
[download]

I added the x modifier just to separate the different parts a bit and make it a little more readable (see perlre for more details).

Flavio
perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf

Io ho capito... ma tu che hai detto?

Comment on Re: Looking for N/A twice Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Looking for N/A twice by johngg (Canon) on Oct 21, 2007 at 21:50 UTC
You can use a single regex regardless of order if you use look-ahead assertions. `$ perl -le ' > $_ = "gjhgjhgjg sata kjhkhkjhkjhkj N/A khkjhkhkhkj N/A"; > print q{ok} if m{(?ix) (?=.\bn/a\b.+\bn/a\b) (?=.\bsata\b)};' ok $` [download] Cheers, JohnGG	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Looking for N/A twice by polettix (Vicar) on Oct 22, 2007 at 06:58 UTC
This struck me like a thunder: `m{(?ix) (?=.\bn/a\b.+\bn/a\b) (?=.\bsata\b)}` [download] I thought that the span of application of `(?ix)` was the stuff inside the two parentheses (just like a contracted form of `(?ix:)`), but your regex clearly contradicts this. So I turned to the manpage and... it's there, nicely documented! I love this language. Flavio perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf Io ho capito... ma tu che hai detto?	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Looking for N/A twice by FunkyMonk (Bishop) on Oct 21, 2007 at 19:27 UTC
The OP didn't state the order that the three phrases will appear. Your regexp won't match `N/A sata N/A`, for example. Only neo1491 can say if this is what s?he wants.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Looking for N/A twice by polettix (Vicar) on Oct 21, 2007 at 20:23 UTC
You're right, after re-reading it, I have to admit that I was fooled... by your example :) Good catch anyway, thanks. Flavio perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf Io ho capito... ma tu che hai detto?	[reply]